PRIVATE BUSINESS

London Local Authorities (Shopping Bags) Bill  (By O rder)

Order for Second Reading read.
	 To be read a Second time on Thursday 9 October.

Manchester City Council Bill  [Lords] (By Order)

Order read for resumed adjourned debate on Second Reading (12 June).
	 Debate to be resumed on Thursday 9 October.

Bournemouth Borough Council Bill  [Lords] (By Order)
	 — 
	Canterbury City Council Bill  (By Order)
	 — 
	Leeds City Council Bill  (By Order)
	 — 
	Nottingham City Council Bill  (By Order)
	 — 
	Reading Borough Council Bill  (By Order)

Orders for Second Reading read.
	 To be read a Second time on Thursday 9 October.

Oral Answers to Questions

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

The Secretary of State was asked—

Food Labelling

Linda Riordan: What recent discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Health on the effectiveness of food labelling regulations in informing consumers of food content.

Hilary Benn: I have had no recent discussions with the Secretary of State for Health on food labelling regulations, but I have met the chair of the Food Standards Agency to discuss the EU Commission's proposals.

Linda Riordan: There are no legal terms to define "vegetarian" or "vegan" in this country or the EU. What plans are there to define those terms in law, and how will they work with the FSA so that labelling complies with them, taking into account the fact one in 10 people are vegetarian?

Patrick Cormack: He's a veggie Wedgie!

Hilary Benn: Yes, I suppose that I should declare an interest. As far as I am aware, there are no plans to define those two terms, certainly not as far as the Commission's proposals are concerned. The Commission's proposals will enable us—I am sure the whole House will welcome this—to deal with the problem that we face, which is that certain types of meat products can be described as British meat although the meat does not come from the UK.

Steve Webb: One of the lessons of the food labelling that the Department of Health oversaw is that Tesco, which thinks it runs the country, did one thing, while other supermarkets and manufacturers did another. Is there a lesson in that when it comes to carbon labelling? Will DEFRA ensure that carbon labelling is done consistently across all products and not let one supermarket do its own thing?

Hilary Benn: There is of course a lively debate taking place about the traffic light system, which the FSA favours, and the guideline daily amounts. We have just completed a consultation on that, to which my right hon. Friend the Health Secretary will respond in due course, and the EU is proposing a framework that would allow national systems to be in place. On the other point that the hon. Gentleman raised, about consistency in carbon labelling, we certainly should aspire to achieve that.

David Wright: What further discussions has my right hon. Friend had with the food industry on the labelling of trans fats and artificial fat products in food on sale both in supermarkets and other food outlets?

Hilary Benn: I have not discussed those issues directly, because they fall within the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health.

Non-native Species

Peter Soulsby: What steps his Department is taking against non-native invasive species.

Joan Ruddock: On 28 May, DEFRA launched the invasive non-native species framework strategy for Great Britain, jointly with the Scottish Executive and Welsh Assembly Government. The strategy contains measures to tackle invasive species, improve the effectiveness of legislation, integrate activities and programmes, and better focus research.

Peter Soulsby: I thank my hon. Friend for her reply. I raise the issue on behalf of the tens of thousands up and down the land who weekly do battle with invasive non-native species. In my case, it is the Japanese knotweed, which until three years ago I would not even have recognised, but which has been identified as the species crowding out the other plants and wildlife at the bottom of our chapel garden. I am aware that getting rid of it is probably a five-year mission—in fact, the Japanese knotweed has been described to me as plant life, but not plant life as we know it. I urge the Minister to recognise that most people are totally unaware, as I was, of what non-native species look like or how to combat them. I urge her to redouble her efforts with the Environment Agency to raise public awareness of non-native species and how to deal with them and eradicate them.

Joan Ruddock: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the issue. He is absolutely right to say that the public need to be much more aware. That is of course one of the reasons why we have launched the strategy. As he said, Japanese knotweed is a very troublesome invasive species. Not only is it a problem for gardeners, but, more critically, it damages biodiversity. It has to be cleared from all construction sites, because it can grow through tarmac, and causes major difficulties on river banks, creating flood risk. We are doing a great deal on that, but we need to do much more. We have tasked a working group on media and communications with developing a clear plan, including consideration of how the Government can work with stakeholders to target audiences more effectively. There is information available on the website of the non-native species secretariat, and DEFRA makes available fact sheets

Andrew Robathan: I am grateful to my parliamentary neighbour, the hon. Member for Leicester, South (Sir Peter Soulsby), for raising this issue. I am sure the whole House will remember the Eradication of Mink Bill in 1995—or possibly not. The point is that mink destroy any good work done for water voles through the biodiversity action plan, because they eat them. Will the Government take action to eradicate mink, which are doing huge damage to wildlife across the country?

Joan Ruddock: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that contribution. I recently visited a site that was conserving water voles; indeed, the Department is doing a considerable amount of work in that respect. Some measures for dealing with mink are already in place. I will look further into what the hon. Gentleman suggests, but I do not believe that an eradication programme is likely to be successful.

Tony Baldry: As the RSPB survey published today demonstrates, one is more likely to see green parakeets and hear cuckoos in the Thames valley nowadays, largely on account of habitat measures—protecting woodland, hay meadows and other valuable sites of special scientific interest such as Otmoor. That is one reason why—I want to flag this up to DEFRA Ministers—the Berkshire, Buckinghamshire and Oxfordshire wildlife trust is so opposed to Department for Communities and Local Government proposals for a so-called eco-town at western Otmoor. There are some real biodiversity issues there, so given that the machinery of government is based in Whitehall, I hope that DEFRA Ministers will be consulted on them.

Joan Ruddock: I commend the work of the hon. Gentleman's local trust; as a Department, we greatly value what it is doing. However, when it comes to eco-towns, a proper procedure is in place whereby all biodiversity and sustainable development issues have to be considered in the development plans. I give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that they will be.

Patrick Cormack: Is the hon. Lady aware that the best way of dealing with the plague of mink that afflicts this country is to hunt them? Will she go and talk to Baroness Golding, our former revered colleague, who will tell her exactly how to set about doing that? As a preliminary, will the Minister say that she will repeal the ridiculous anti-hunting Bill?

Joan Ruddock: What a temptation is presented to me! I assure the House that there is absolutely no question of any repeal of the Hunting Act 2004, which was sought by the public and was supported by all the animal welfare charities. None the less, I am more than happy to look again at the issue of mink.
	I might have said in response to the hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) who mentioned parakeets, that we are very concerned about a small colony that has established itself in north London. In some cases, eradication is the right way forward, as, indeed, with the action we are taking to deal with the ruddy duck.

Farm Security

Nicholas Winterton: What guidance his Department has issued to farmers and landowners on farm security.

Jonathan R Shaw: As the hon. Gentleman will know, criminal activity that targets farmers is clearly a matter for the Home Office and the local police. My Department has, however, been in contact with the Association of Chief Police Officers because we were concerned that criminal activity targeting farmers was on the increase, and we wanted to ensure that there was good liaison between the National Farmers Union and the police. We have been assured that there is.

Nicholas Winterton: I thank the Minister for that reply, but given that the figures show a substantial increase in thefts of low-cost red diesel from farmers across the country as well as of household oil of domestic dwellers in rural areas, and given that the cost of farm equipment theft rose by some 16.5 per cent. last year in the UK, what particular detailed discussions is the Department having with the Home Office and the police in order to put a stop to this very considerable cost to rural dwellers?

Jonathan R Shaw: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising this important issue. As he said, red diesel is being stolen, along with valuable farm equipment and other materials that can be recycled and sold around the world. It is a sad phenomenon that globalisation is demanding more of the world's resources and that criminal activity is targeted at rural areas. We are in close contact with the Home Office, and, indeed, with ACPO. As I said, we want to make sure that there is good liaison between such organisations as the NFU and the police. We sympathise with farmers and many others who have been the victims of crime—there have even been deaths.

David Drew: I hear what my hon. Friend says, and I sympathise with those landowners and farmers who have been affected, but surely one of the best ways to ensure that our countryside is secure is to allow appropriate development, particularly where there are redundant buildings, so that we get a living and working countryside and one that is more secure. I hope that DEFRA will talk to the Department for Communities and Local Government about how that will be possible in future.

Jonathan R Shaw: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who gives me an opportunity to advise the House of our minimum target of 10,300 new affordable rural dwellings, for which we have put in considerable resources. DEFRA and the DCLG are working closely together. We want families who are from the countryside to be able to remain in the countryside, and that is why we included the target for communities of fewer than 3,000 dwellings.

Philip Hollobone: There are fewer crimes in the countryside than in our towns, but is it not the case that if a bicycle is stolen from a town centre it is recorded as one crime, while a combine harvester stolen from a field is also recorded as one crime? What can the Minister do with his colleagues in the Home Office to try to emphasise the disproportionate impact of the theft of agricultural equipment?

Jonathan R Shaw: I am advised that we publish figures by value. The investment that farmers must make in agricultural equipment is considerable, and if a farmer cannot take their stock to slaughter or harvest their crops, the impact is not only on the farmer but on all of us. With less food, the prices will rise. As I said, we are in touch with other Departments, and good liaison between the local police, NFU and farmers is vital. We will do what we can to ensure a reduction in such crime. As a consequence of the phenomenon of globalisation, there is a pull on resources, but we must remain ever vigilant—not just farmers but everyone, whether rural, suburban or urban.

David Kidney: Obviously, the isolation of farms makes them vulnerable to crime in the first place. With high diesel prices and metal prices around the world, they have become more vulnerable to crime. A college in my constituency trains police officers around the country in specialist countryside crime issues, and my hon. Friend's Department already supports specialist wildlife crime issues. Will he work more closely with the police and farmers on adopting farm watch schemes, as we have neighbourhood watch and shop watch schemes, with his Department as the co-ordinator rather than the Home Office?

Jonathan R Shaw: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making those points. I assure the House that we take the issue extremely seriously, for all the reasons that I have set out. We want to work with the farming and rural communities so that the increase in recent months, and in the last year or so, does not continue. We will do what we can, and I will take back his suggestion of what more we could do. I will write to him with our conclusions.

Pollution (London)

Greg Hands: What recent discussions he has had with the Mayor of London on noise and air pollution in London.

Jonathan R Shaw: I have had no recent discussions with the Mayor of London—[Hon. Members: "Shame!"] He is a very busy man. The good news, however, is that my officials have been in discussions with their counterparts in the Greater London authority on the issue of air quality and pollution, and we will continue to have regular meetings at an official level.

Greg Hands: Why does the Minister not support Boris's campaign against a sixth terminal and a third runway at Heathrow? The Government's own Environment Agency points to the risk of an increase in morbidity and mortality in densely populated areas of west London such as mine if that huge expansion goes ahead. When will the environmental voice be heard at the Cabinet table in discussion on Heathrow?

Jonathan R Shaw: I would be delighted to meet the Mayor of London and I will ensure that my diary is available to him, but, as I say, he is a busy man. On Heathrow, the hon. Gentleman rightly brings forward the concerns of his constituents. The Secretary of State for Transport set out to the House on 8 July what we intend to do in terms of the consultation on Heathrow. The hon. Gentleman mentions the report from the Environment Agency. Obviously, all reports that are submitted in relation to the proposed expansion of Heathrow will be taken into account, as has been set out by the Secretary of State for Transport.

Andrew Love: The A406 North Circular road passes right through the middle of my constituency and 60,000 vehicles go in each direction every day, causing enormous noise and air pollution. Will my hon. Friend make it a priority to speak to the Mayor about air quality in particular? It is deteriorating daily and something needs to be done.

Jonathan R Shaw: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who sets out the concerns of his constituents in Edmonton about air quality. We have an air quality strategy, which sets out its purpose in London and the responsibilities of the Mayor. As I have said, I am more than happy to meet the Mayor to discuss how he, the Greater London authority and the Government can work best to reduce air pollution in London. My hon. Friend will know that London is a heavily polluted city, and that that pollution is principally brought about by traffic. What would life be like without the congestion charge in those parts of London? Pollution would be considerably higher.

Alan Simpson: Every mile of car travel emits 12 times as much pollution as a mile of rail travel. In his discussions with the Mayor of London, will the Minister consider commissioning a survey of the methods of reducing passenger and freight movements into and out of the capital and shifting them to rail? If we shifted the subsidies to non-road transport rather than the motorist, that would massively improve the quality of air in the capital.

Jonathan R Shaw: This is going to be a long meeting! My hon. Friend will be aware that transport and trains are the responsibility of the Department for Transport. On freight, I can tell him that British Waterways is making a considerable contribution towards ensuring that aggregates being brought to the Olympic site will not be brought in lorries but by barges on canals. That is to be welcomed. Where we can do those things, we are, and the overall structure for ensuring that we keep pollution levels as low as possible for the development of the Olympics is, again, in the gift of the Mayor.

Marine Habitats

Martin Salter: What steps his Department is taking to safeguard marine habitats.

Jonathan R Shaw: rose—

Patrick Cormack: You're busy this morning.

Jonathan R Shaw: This is a bit of a one-man band today— [ Interruption. ] My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State says that he is right behind me, which is very reassuring.
	The Government are committed to establishing by 2012 a network of well-managed marine protected areas that will conserve the richness of our marine environment.

Martin Salter: I congratulate the Minister on reshuffling his entire ministerial team. What contribution does he think the Severn barrage will make to aquatic life, bearing in mind the dire warnings from the powerful coalition of wildlife and fishery groups about the damage that the barrage will do to migratory fish runs of salmon and sea trout, which provide such vital income and recreational assets to the Wye, Usk and Severn catchment areas?

Jonathan R Shaw: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has a proud and distinguished record as Labour's angling spokesman; he has a done a great deal that has been welcomed in all sections of the fishing community.
	On the Severn barrage, I am well aware that the Severn and its tributaries, including the Wye and the Usk, are valuable spawning grounds for a number of important migratory fish, including salmon and eels. Our feasibility study will examine the possibility of developing the barrage, which could provide 5 per cent. of this country's electricity and make a huge contribution to our renewable efforts. However, we will need to balance that against the important environmental damage that would be caused. Those are the issues that confront us today, and we must make balanced choices. What my hon. Friend and anglers have said about the barrage will form part of our consideration as we move forward on the feasibility study.

Andrew Turner: What is the Minister doing to reduce the effect of the American crayfish and advantage the British crayfish?

Jonathan R Shaw: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that in the Marine Bill we are introducing changes in respect of salmon and freshwater and migratory fish; there will be new measures to allow the Environment Agency to ensure that particular species are not put into waters where they can breed and have an impact on native species.

Patrick Cormack: They are already there.

Jonathan R Shaw: As the hon. Gentleman says from a sedentary position, they are already there. The Environment Agency is doing its best to tackle the issue, and we will be introducing further powers—this has been welcomed by the Environment Agency and by many anglers—to reduce these alien species and ensure that we protect our native species.

Madeleine Moon: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West (Martin Salter), I have great concerns about the Severn barrage. The Severn estuary not only has the second highest tidal range in the world, but in winter its mudflats, saltflats and rocky marshes provide vital breeding grounds and overwintering habitats for 65,000 birds, which feed on a huge variety of invertebrate, insect and, sadly, fish life in the estuary. Will the Minister assure me that he will take care to protect the biodiversity of the Severn estuary and ensure that if this plan does, foolishly, go ahead, compensatory habitat will be provided for all those species.

Jonathan R Shaw: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question. Of course, all those measures will need to be considered in the feasibility study, which will last roughly two years and cost about £9 million. It is also important to take into account the fact that climate change is also impacting on wildlife and that we need to reduce our carbon levels. We may conclude that the Severn barrage will make such a significant contribution that it will help wildlife and all of mankind. Those issues need to be considered carefully, and the environmental points that both she and my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West (Martin Salter) have made will form part of our consideration as we advance the feasibility study.

Bill Wiggin: A great deal of the damage to marine habitats is done by fishing. Some £97 million of European fisheries fund money was supposed to be used to promote more sustainable and environmentally friendly fishing gears and practices. Is it not the case that that money is not available because the Government failed to agree with the devolved Administrations and failed to consult on and submit our programme to the Commission by the deadline? Perhaps the Minister can tell us when we will get our money and whether the EU has confirmed that DEFRA will not be fined for a late submission of the operational programme?

Jonathan R Shaw: The hon. Gentleman will know that I was in Brussels till half-past 10 on Monday negotiating the changes to the European fisheries fund. New regulations will impact on all member states and will provide more flexibility within the fund. Obviously, we must look at the detail of those and discuss that with the industry. His question about whether we will miss out is obviously outdated because of the changes that were agreed in the Commission earlier this week.

Regulation

David Evennett: What estimate he has made of the number of regulations which his Department and its agencies enforce.

Phil Woolas: rose—

Hon. Members: Oh!

Phil Woolas: Second fiddle!
	On 28 April, DEFRA placed a report in the Library on its statutory instruments between January 2000 and December 2007. The report shows that DEFRA implemented 1,036 statutory instruments between those dates and revoked 840, dating back to 2000 and earlier.

David Evennett: I am grateful for the Minister's response. However, with input costs rising and British businesses forced to compete on an uneven playing field with the rest of Europe, they can ill afford a regulatory burden that is increasing year on year. What is the cost to industry of those regulations, and will the Minister take steps further to reduce the bureaucracy and red tape that prohibits business from doing its job?

Phil Woolas: I would challenge the premise of the hon. Gentleman's question. In fact, the direction of travel is downwards. The plan that DEFRA started to implement in 2007 will reduce the administrative burden by just under a third by 2010, so we are moving in the right direction.

Kerry McCarthy: I know that at least one of the ministerial team is aware of the case in my constituency of the greengrocer who was prohibited from selling kiwi fruit because they were 4 g too light. What plans are being made to review the EU grading laws and does he believe that, in an era of rising food prices and shortages, such decisions are best left to the consumer, instead of being the subject of regulation?

Phil Woolas: I have been informed about this particular case. My hon. Friend will accept that it is important that we have rules for quality produce, as that is what the buyers want and what the consumers want, as is supported across the House. The vast majority of traders play by the rules and do not want to be undermined by those who do not. However, we are of course aware of the case that my hon. Friend raises.

Robert Smith: What effort is the Department making to reduce the burden of regulation, especially from the European Union, when it comes to the problem that hill farmers will face if electronic tagging of sheep is introduced? What effort is the Minister making to reduce that burden on farmers?

Phil Woolas: In relation to the DEFRA delivery agencies, which act as regulatory bodies to protect the environment and the consumer, we have a simplification plan, which is working. We are reducing regulation, but our goal is quality regulation, including for the hill farmers whom the hon. Gentleman mentions.

James Paice: It seems to me that the Minister does not really know what he is talking about when he mentions reducing the burden of regulation. That is because his Department is perpetrating a complete con trick on the industry and the public, because it measures the burden of regulation only by what it calls "administrative burdens". Why does he not allow for the full cost to industry of all these burdens? For example, DEFRA says that the admin cost of the catchment sensitive farming regulation is £391,000 a year; it is actually £210 million a year. DEFRA says that the cost of the nitrates directive is £1.5 million a year, but the true cost, including all the investment that industry has to make, is £250 million a year. Despite all the Government's warm words about farming, the Department is stifling farmers' ability to compete.

Phil Woolas: The hon. Gentleman is ungenerous in his remarks and his analysis. He refers to the costs of regulation but ignores the benefits. One person's regulation is another's protection—a point that is often missed. Many of the regulations to which he refers are supported by the industries because they help to ensure that the cowboys and bad guys do not get an unfair advantage. He has made an accusation about costs, but he has completely ignored the costs to the taxpayer of non-regulation of environmental protection. For example, what would he say to the water industry, which spends £288 million a year treating nitrates from run-off? I suppose that he would not include that as a cost.

Bovine TB

James Gray: What the cost was of compensation for cattle which tested positive for bovine tuberculosis in each of the last five years.

Hilary Benn: In England, the following amounts were paid in compensation for cattle slaughtered under bovine tuberculosis controls in each of the last five calendar years: £26 million in 2003; £25 million in 2004; £27 million in 2005; £16 million in 2006, and £15 million in 2007.

James Gray: The Secretary of State's rapid production of the figures will not disguise the fact that, over the past 10 years, some 200,000 cattle—most of them perfectly healthy—have been slaughtered. Their carcases have been burned, needlessly, at a cost some £600 million to the public purse so far. This year, 40,000 cattle have been killed, at a vast cost, and the predictions are that £300 million a year will be spent on TB across England by 2012. Does he accept that that is appalling wasteful for the public purse, and that it is a tragedy that those animals are being slaughtered needlessly? Does he also accept that farmers in hot-spot areas such as North Wiltshire are distraught at his announcement this week that he will ignore the recommendation from the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee that some culling of badgers in some areas may have some effect on restraining this appalling disease?

Hilary Benn: I would say to the hon. Gentleman and his constituents that bovine TB is an appalling disease that has a terrible impact. I have ignored nothing, however: I have looked at the science and, in the end, I have to make a judgment. I have reached my decision about what will be effective in dealing with the problem. As I explained to the House in my oral statement last week, the science and the practicality tell me—and the House—that badger culling will not contribute. That was the view of Professor Bourne, so we have to use the means currently at our disposal. That is why I want to sit down with the industry to discuss what further steps we should take, and it is also why we are significantly increasing the investment in vaccines.

Water Prices

Linda Gilroy: What recent discussions he has had with Ofwat on the periodic review of water price limits 2009.

Phil Woolas: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State met representatives of Ofwat on 3 June. DEFRA is in regular contact with Ofwat on a range of issues, including the 2009 periodic review of water price limits.

Linda Gilroy: I thank my hon. Friend for that response. When will the metering and charging review be set up, and when will it report? Will he reassure the House that it will report in good time for Ofwat to take its findings into consideration, and for all of us to have access to them?

Phil Woolas: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her input to this policy area on behalf of her constituents facing high water and sewage charges. We are determined to ensure fairness. The review will be launched imminently and it will dovetail into the Ofwat PRO9 process—that is, the price review process for 2009. That will ensure that we can make better progress towards water efficiency measures and, through an examination of tariffs, a fairer system for her constituents.

Pitt Report

Tim Loughton: When he will allocate funding to implement the recommendations of the final Pitt report.

Hilary Benn: A total of £34.5 million has been provisionally set aside to deal with the recommendations in Sir Michael Pitt's report. I will fully consider the recommendations before making a final allocation and response with a costed action plan this autumn.

Tim Loughton: As Sir Michael makes no fewer than 92 recommendations, is the Secretary of State satisfied that the money that he has set aside will be sufficient to implement them? Many hinge on better joint working between the various agencies, and a good job of work remains to be done in that regard. What assurances can he give the House about Sir Michael Pitt's ongoing reporting to Parliament about the progress of the implementation of his practical recommendations—or will we just have to wait for the recriminations after the next deluge hits us?

Hilary Benn: The hon. Gentleman's last comment is a bit unfair. I will continue to report to the House about the progress being made in implementing the recommendations. As I told the House when I made my statement, Sir Michael will have a continuing role. Only last week, indeed, in the light of his report and together with him, I met the heads of all the agencies and bodies involved to see what further progress has been made, and what more we need to do together. From memory, Sir Michael has said that about 80 per cent. of his recommendations call for a different way of doing things, and do not require additional expenditure. I shall weigh all that up when, as I promised, I report back to the House with the plan in the autumn.

Michael Jack: In Sir Michael's report he lays emphasis on the importance of improving the resilience of utilities' facilities where there are cases of severe flooding. What reassurance, pursuant to the last answer given by the Minister of State, can the Secretary of State give me that the cost of utilities improving the resilience of their facilities in view of flooding will not be passed on to consumers, but will come from the balance sheets of the companies?

Hilary Benn: As the right hon. Gentleman will know, ultimately that is a matter for the regulator, but I am able to report to the House that National Grid has purchased 1.2 km of relocatable defences like the ones that were used to protect Walham during the flooding last year; CE Electric has purchased seven temporary defence kits; and EDF Energy has also purchased a number. The National Grid and Central Networks have put defences around Walham and Castlemead substations following the floods last year. That demonstrates to the House how, now that all of us have had a wake-up call, the utility companies are responding.

Brian Jenkins: My right hon. Friend will realise that one of the missing parts of the jigsaw is the Humber, the Trent and the Tame river basin flood strategy, which we shall probably have in two years' time. Until that part is in place, does he believe that local authorities and other interested parties can take the best possible future measures?

Hilary Benn: We have made it very clear in the decisions that we have taken that the Environment Agency will now have overall responsibility for dealing with flooding from whatever source, and that local authorities will lead on surface water flooding. That was what Sir Michael recommended, and we shall now put it in place, through a flood and water Bill. Clearly it takes time for some of those plans to come forward. The other practical contribution that we are making, of course, is to provide more money for flood defence.

Anne McIntosh: The Government are not displaying any sense of urgency whatever. They have failed to come forward with a detailed action plan, which is the least that the Secretary of State could do to satisfy the House, and to satisfy the victims of last summer's floods; already one year has passed since then. The Government are embarking on a consultation on the restructuring of internal drainage boards. They probably have more engineers; we know from the Select Committee report that there is a shortage. What are the implications for ongoing maintenance of this restructuring? Will there be even fewer engineers at the end of the restructuring?

Hilary Benn: First, I do not accept what the hon. Lady says about how we have responded to what happened last year. Indeed, she does not have to take my word for it; she just has to look at what Sir Michael said in his interim report about the urgent recommendations, and what he said in his final report about the progress that has been made. Secondly, we are carrying out the consultation to ensure that the contribution of internal drainage boards can be as effective as possible, and clearly we have no intention of doing something that will make it more difficult for them to do their job effectively; on the contrary.

Climate Change

Rob Marris: What steps his Department is taking to encourage best practice in adaptation to climate change in the countryside.

Joan Ruddock: We have a cross-government programme on adaptation, and a framework for adaptation is established through the Climate Change Bill. DEFRA is working with regional rural affairs forums, Farming Futures and the rural climate change forum to help raise awareness and encourage best practice.

Rob Marris: I am delighted that at last we have a cross-government framework on adaptation. What funding did DEFRA include in its budgets for research into, and knowledge transfer regarding, climate change adaptation in rural communities, including for productive agriculture?

Joan Ruddock: I thank my hon. Friend. This is a very important issue, and next week I intend to launch the adapting to climate change website, which will show what is happening across the whole of Government. This is not just a DEFRA issue; it is across the whole of Government, and an accompanying document will be published. But I can tell him that £5 million per year has been given to a research programme on agriculture and climate change, which includes research on the impacts of climate change on agriculture and how the sector can adapt. We are also working with the rural climate change forum, as I said. We have provided £250,000 up to March 2009 to Farming Futures, which aims to provide for farmers practical advice on adaptation. There is not time to go into what we are doing on biodiversity, but enabling biodiversity to adapt to climate change is also very significant, and money is being spent.

Packaging

Eric Illsley: What progress has been made in increasing producer responsibility for packaging, as referred to in his Department's framework for pro-environmental behaviours.

Joan Ruddock: Earlier this year, I raised the packaging recovery targets for 2008, 2009 and 2010, which came into force on 14 March. The targets for 2008 have been set to ensure that the UK meets the current EU targets. Targets post-2008 are designed to ensure continued compliance with the EU and to reflect ambitions outlined in the Government's waste strategy.

Eric Illsley: The document referred to in my question—the Department's framework for pro-environmental behaviours—makes only one reference to packaging. It is one line on page 49, which says the Government will seek to
	"increase producer responsibility for packaging,"
	despite the fact that only 3 per cent. of all the material that goes to landfill is packaging and, as my hon. Friend has pointed out, recovery targets have been increased. The difficulty for the industry is that it now cannot recycle much of the material collected, because it is of such poor quality. Will she take that on board and, with her colleagues in the Department for Communities and Local Government, try to improve the possibility of recycling better materials?

Joan Ruddock: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for his work on packaging, which is very important. The reason why we must pay a lot of attention to packaging is that in many cases it is avoidable. The public believe that it is avoidable, and they want something done about it. So we will not resile from that. We recently produced information through WRAP—the Waste and Resources Action Programme—which is the Government-funded organisation that deals with waste, that shows us that in the current market, kerbside sorting is more effective for local authorities than single co-mingling, and that costs are similar if two streams are co-mingled but paper is kept separate. So local authorities can benefit from kerbside separation. Kerbside sort achieves the higher-quality recyclates that my hon. Friend wants to see produced. So we are providing a great deal of assistance to local authorities and giving them advice. Contrary to the popular belief that co-mingling is the easiest thing for consumers, we have found that the size of bins matters in determining how much consumers recycle. We will not hesitate to try to get better recycling quality and levels from our local authorities, because that is what our citizens want.

Topical Questions

Alun Michael: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

Hilary Benn: DEFRA's responsibility is to enable us all to live within our environmental means. I wish to inform the House that we are today publishing a discussion paper entitled, "Ensuring the UK's Food Security in a Changing World". The UK currently has a secure food supply, but with recent sharp increases in food and fuel prices, a growing world population and climate change, it is sensible that we think about the impact of those changes on food supply in the years ahead. I look forward to receiving views on the paper.

Alun Michael: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on taking a decision about badger culling, based on the science and the evidence. Given that we have a long and porous border between Wales and England, does he agree that any widespread culling of badgers in Wales would be bad for farmers in Wales and could be bad for farmers in England?

Hilary Benn: Those decisions in Wales are, of course, devolved matters, and we will keep in close contact with the Welsh Assembly Government as they take forward their proposals. I reached the view that badger culling could not make a contribution to the control of disease, in line with the advice given to me by the independent scientific group, for the reasons that I have set out very clearly to the House.

Alistair Carmichael: The Fisheries Minister will be aware that earlier this week Commissioner Borg recognised the acute difficulties faced by the industry, and made available some €2 billion for a compensation fund. In light of that, will the Minister reopen dialogue with the industry in this country to see what use can be made of the money provided by Mr. Borg? Of course, if we do not take it up, it will be taken up by fishing industries in other countries in the EU.

Jonathan R Shaw: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising the issue. He is right to draw to the House's attention the fact that the Fisheries Council met on 15 July, when we discussed bringing in new flexibilities and new regulations for the European fisheries fund. The flexibilities will allow for some decommissioning, not just of whole fleets but, as we discussed with the Commissioner, of fleet segments, either geographically or by sector. We will look closely at, and talk to the industry about, the changes that are being made, so that we can implement them to best effect. As I have said in previous debates, both to him and to the industry, I do not subscribe to subsidies for red diesel. I know that prices have gone up greatly, but for the fishing industry, no duty is applied. If I applied the full de minimis provisions, it would provide the UK fleet with one month's relief at last year's prices, and I do not think that that is a good approach, even in the short term.

Graham Allen: In the several months since I last raised the issue with the departmental team, what progress has been made on bringing forward incentives to introduce biodegradable chewing gum? Chewing gum blights our townscapes and spoils our children's outings. Members on both sides of the House have been raising the issue for several months now. Will the Minister tell us when he will be able to introduce a measure to improve the incentives?  [Interruption.] He may think that it is funny—or rather there may be colleagues in the House who think it is funny, but I assure him, and them, that it is not funny for people whose families are affected, or whose town is blighted by chewing gum.

Jonathan R Shaw: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. In the city that he represents, Nottingham, the council reckons that it spends more than £12,000 on clearing up the flipping stuff. I know that he, as the chair of One Nottingham, his local area agreement, would rather use that money for things of far more advantage—

Bill Wiggin: Sticky stuff!

Jonathan R Shaw: The hon. Gentleman makes jokey remarks about the subject, but chewing gum costs councils a lot of money, and it is antisocial. We can say to people, "Put it in the bin." We have a campaign that supports local councils in encouraging people to put their chewing gum in the bin. Where councils have taken up that campaign, they have seen a reduction in the problem. On manufacturing—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must stop the Minister there. We are up against the clock.

Peter Ainsworth: Let us return to food. Was it prudent of the Prime Minister to take time out to lecture us all about the amount of food that we throw away when it turns out that 15 Government Departments do not even know how much of the food that they buy with our taxpayers' money they throw away every year? Is that not just another case of "Do as we say, not as we do"?

Hilary Benn: No, it is not. May I say that it is very nice to see the hon. Gentleman back at the Dispatch Box? I have missed him of late. We published information on the amount of perfectly usable food that gets thrown away. The information had been collected as a result of research that was undertaken; that is common sense. I think that a lot of people will be surprised, as I was, to learn of the amount of food that was being thrown away; the information makes us more aware. If we can save money and not contribute to climate change—the methane that flows from that food goes into landfill—it is very sensible to do so.

Peter Ainsworth: Changing the subject, I am sure that the whole House will agree that it was a great day for wildlife conservation when, in 1989, the international community banned the trade in ivory. I am sure that most of us would also agree that it was a regrettable day when, in 1997, Robert Mugabe led a successful challenge to that ban. Are the Government proud that on Tuesday, acting on behalf of the EU, an official from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs voted to allow China to import ivory? Surely the best way to deal with the continuing illegal trade in ivory is to choke off demand, not stoke it in that way.

Joan Ruddock: The hon. Gentleman knows, because I have written to him at length, that the decision was taken on behalf of the EU. Ministers were involved in that decision, which was not taken by an official. The decision was originally taken in principle by the international community in 2002 to allow a number of African states that had legal stockpiles of ivory to undertake a one-off sale. The conditions on the buyers in those sales were laid down by an international body that protects wildlife. Japan met the conditions, and China applied to meet the conditions. After a year of inquiry, China was found to meet the criteria, which are about safeguarding the import of legal stocks, ensuring that stocks are only moved around legally and making sure that illegal ivory is not laundered. After the last one-off sale, which went to Japan, may I tell the hon. Gentleman—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must tell the Minister that her reply has taken more than a minute, and that I must consider Back Benchers.

Linda Riordan: Is the Minister aware of the recent report on reward-only waste incentive schemes in the US? Are there any plans to introduce such incentives in this country?

Joan Ruddock: Local authorities can already introduce reward-only schemes. We have piloted such schemes in this country, which qualify for the incentive pilots that will be on offer next year. I understand that the Opposition are promoting such schemes, but the problem is that the shadow Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles), has instructed Tory councils not to co-operate with the Government. Furthermore, the US schemes depend on chips in bins, which the hon. Gentleman has described as "an invasion of privacy". The Conservative party is in a pickle over its waste strategy.

Martin Horwood: DEFRA's new company reporting rules for carbon may be based on grid average electricity, even if companies have renewable energy onsite, which might undermine the green energy market and lead companies to declare imaginary carbon that they have not really emitted. Will the Secretary of State agree to meet industry representatives and hon. Members from both sides of the House in an attempt to resolve that obvious anomaly?

Phil Woolas: The answer is yes. I am more than happy to do that, and the hon. Gentleman has raised an important point.

Hugh Bayley: I welcome the Government's decision to publish proposals on tackling food security. Many of our constituents, especially those on low incomes, face real problems with rising food prices. What contribution does the Secretary of State believe that British farmers can make to increasing our food security and reducing prices in the shops?

Hilary Benn: The most important contribution is to do what they are doing already, which is to produce food that people want to buy. If we are to deal with global price increases, we need a lot more agricultural production around the world, including in Africa. If Africa cannot increase production to feed a growing population, it will add to pressure on prices for the available stocks of food, which will affect UK consumers in the end. More production in the world is the single most important thing.

Steve Webb: The Department knows that bluetongue strand 1 is spreading rapidly from south to north Spain, and is moving in our direction. I understand that the vaccines that we have in the UK are for a different strand of bluetongue. Will the Secretary of State tell us how useful those vaccines will be against that strand? If they are not effective, what is his strategy?

Hilary Benn: Like hon. Members, I am aware of the new strain that is coming up through Europe. It is a different type, and our vaccine deals with the bluetongue strain that we currently face; the vaccination is rolling out extremely successfully. We are carefully examining the implications of the change in the strain, when the strain might come to the UK, and what we need to do to respond. Vaccination has been shown to work, and I hope that it will deal with the new strain, if it comes. I shall be happy to respond further to the hon. Gentleman.

Michael Jack: Because of the discovery of bovine TB in calves exported to the Netherlands, all cattle exports to the European Union are now at risk. What steps will the Secretary of State take to address this problem, specifically to try to find a way of testing that works with calves?

Hilary Benn: The right hon. Gentleman raises an extremely important point. We are urgently investigating the circumstances surrounding this case. We have been in contact with the Dutch authorities and with the Commission, and I will report further to the House.

Philip Hollobone: On 24 June, a rabbit with cryptosporidiosis hopped into the water treatment works at Pitsford, in my constituency, and contaminated the water supply for 250,000 people. Is the Secretary of State as impressed as I am by the response of Anglian Water, the local media and others, which could not have been any better?

Hilary Benn: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for asking that question. I am indeed impressed by how this has been dealt with. I also pay tribute to local Members of Parliament for the role that he and others have played. Giving good information and timely advice, and keeping people in touch with what is happening and when it is safe to start drinking the water again, is exactly how such incidents should be dealt with. I applaud all those involved for the efforts that they have made.

Andrew George: Further to the questions asked by the right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) and the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray), has the Secretary of State considered whether instead of looking at the need to bear down on bovine TB as a nationwide problem, it might be better to form partnerships in the hot- spot areas between scientists, environmentalists and farmers, who know more about the problems within the locality, in order to find local solutions?

Hilary Benn: That is a very helpful suggestion. As I have said to the House, I want to establish a TB partnership group precisely so that all the means at our disposal that are effective—that is the heart of the debate—can be used. I am waiting for the industry to come and participate in the mechanism that I have proposed so that we can bring together all those who have an interest in this disease and all the effective means of dealing with it, and get on with it.

Business of the House

Theresa May: May I ask the Leader of the House to give us the forthcoming business?

Harriet Harman: The business for next week will be as follows:
	Monday 21 July—Topical debate on the Bercow review of services for children and young people (0-19) with speech, language and communication needs followed by consideration of Lords Amendments to the Housing and Regeneration Bill.
	Tuesday 22 July—Motion on the summer recess Adjournment followed by consideration of Lords Amendments to the Crossrail Bill. Colleagues will wish to be reminded that the House will meet at 11.30 am on this day. The House will not adjourn until the Speaker has signified Royal Assent.
	The business for the week commencing 6 October will include:
	Monday 6 October—Second Reading of the Dormant Bank and Building Society Accounts Bill [Lords].
	Tuesday 7 October—Opposition day (19th allotted day). There will be a debate on an Opposition motion. Subject to be announced.
	Wednesday 8 October—Remaining stages of the Children and Young Persons Bill [Lords].
	Thursday 9 October—Topical debate: subject to be announced followed by a general debate on defence in the UK.
	I should like to wish all hon. Members and all staff of the House—the whole team of staff, from my excellent private office to the dedicated House of Commons cleaners—a good recess.

Theresa May: rose—

Harriet Harman: I am sorry—I did not turn the page over. It is that hard being Leader of the House!
	I should also like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall for October will be:
	Thursday 9 October—A debate on the report from the Children, Schools and Families Committee on testing and assessment.
	Thursday 16 October—A debate on the report from the Business and Enterprise Committee entitled "Jobs for the Girls: Two years on".
	Thursday 23 October—A debate on the 30th annual House of Commons Commission report.
	Thursday 30 October—A debate on the report from the Public Administration Committee entitled "Politics and Administration: Ministers and civil servants".

Mr. Speaker: Is the Leader of the House sure that she is finished?

Theresa May: I think that the Leader of the House has lost the plot as well as the page. I echo the comments that she made, however, and as this is the last business questions before the recess, Mr. Speaker, I wish you, all right hon. and hon. Members, all staff of this House and Members' staff a happy summer recess.
	The Prime Minister is expected to make an oral statement to this House on Tuesday on Iraq or other matters relating to the middle east. Will the right hon. and learned Lady confirm today that the Prime Minister will be making such an oral statement on Tuesday?
	Last week, I asked the Leader of the House whether the Chancellor would make a statement to the House when the report on Equitable Life was published. Her response was:
	"Let us see what it says and then we can consider how to deal with it."—[ Official Report, 10 July 2008; Vol. 478, c. 1567.]
	That report is published today. It reveals serious regulatory failure and calls for compensation for policyholders. The Chancellor has made a written statement today, but given that Members of all parties have constituents affected by this failure, and will want to question him on it, will the Leader of the House guarantee that the Chancellor will make a oral statement to the House on the Government's response to the ombudsman's report on Equitable Life when the House returns?
	Last week, my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) raised the issue of the Modernisation Committee's report on regional accountability. The report was passed on the casting vote of the Chairman, the right hon. and learned Lady, who is a member of the Government. The report endorses her Government's proposals, as set out in the Green Paper, "The Governance of Britain". The Committee's recent report on debating departmental objectives also arose from the Government's Green Paper, as did the Committee's current inquiry on the recall and dissolution of Parliament. Select Committees of this House do not exist to execute Government policy, so may we have a debate on the future role of the Modernisation Committee?
	Talking of that Committee, the Leader of the House today issued an illuminating single-paragraph written statement, saying that she will publish the Government's response to the Committee's report on regional accountability on Monday. As this is the last business questions before the recess, and the last real opportunity for the Leader of the House to take questions on future business, will she tell us when she intends to table the Standing Orders on regional Select Committees?
	When the right hon. and learned Lady announced her proposals on the Equality Bill on 26 June, she said:
	"Next month I will publish a further paper setting out our proposals in greater detail".—[ Official Report, 26 June 2008; Vol. 478, c. 501.]
	As the House rises on Tuesday, will she guarantee today that that paper will be published before the recess?
	On a similar theme, on 12 June, when asked about the procedure for choosing topical debates, the Leader of the House said:
	"we are reviewing the operation of topical debates...I shall report to the House before the summer recess."—[ Official Report, 12 June 2008; Vol. 477, c. 462.]
	Again, as the House rises on Tuesday, will she guarantee today that that report will be published before the recess?
	In her written statement yesterday on Members' allowances, the Leader of the House said that she had had
	"a number of positive discussions...with many hon. Members."—[ Official Report, 16 July 2008; Vol. 479, c. 31WS.]
	Will she now list those Members, and, as the House rises on Tuesday, will she guarantee that her consultation document on Members' allowances will be circulated to Members before the recess?
	Those questions can all be answered by the right hon. and learned Lady today. They are not matters on which she can pass the buck to other members of the Cabinet. They are important matters for this House and our constituents. Perhaps she should stop dreaming about becoming leader of the country, and start acting as the leader of this House.

Harriet Harman: In respect of the consultation document on allowances, which I announced by way of a written ministerial statement yesterday morning—we had an opportunity to discuss these issues during an Opposition day debate yesterday—it would be preferable for us to produce the consultation document before the House rises, but I cannot guarantee that. We had an opportunity in the ministerial statement to map out the issues that will be addressed in the consultation document, and they were the subject of the debate yesterday.
	The right hon. Lady mentioned that I said that I had had discussions with several hon. Members after the debate on 3 July. I would never think it right to list hon. Members to whom I spoke as Leader of the House. I discuss many issues with many hon. Members and they do not expect their names to be published for having discussions with me. Hon. Members know that I welcome discussion with anybody who wants talk to me about such issues. The discussions have been positive, which is probably more than can be said about those that the right hon. Lady held with many Conservative Members.
	I intend to issue the results of our review on topical debates before the House rises for the summer recess. I will also publish the detailed paper on the Equality Bill in response to the discrimination law review before the House rises. Standing Orders for regional Committees will be placed before the House in the autumn.
	The right hon. Lady made several points about the "Governance of Britain" proposals for the House, which the Modernisation Committee considered. We could deal with the matter in several ways: the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice could make proposals and we could simply lay them before the House for debate and agreement, or the issue could be given to the Select Committee that is responsible for considering changes in the House—the Modernisation Committee. We think that the latter is preferable. If the right hon. Lady objects to the matter being discussed in the Modernisation Committee—

Theresa May: Or the Procedure Committee.

Harriet Harman: Indeed. We are not ideological about the matter. If something is more appropriate for the Procedure Committee to discuss, we are happy for it to go to that Committee. As a member of the Modernisation Committee, if the right hon. Lady believes that it is more appropriate to discuss some aspect of the "Governance of Britain" proposals in the Procedure Committee rather than the Modernisation Committee, she has only to say so and I am sure that we would be prepared to take up her suggestion.
	The right hon. Lady asked about the Equitable Life report, which has been published, and I thank the ombudsman for her work on that. The report is detailed and comprehensive, and considers matters that range back over the past 20 years. It has some 2,000 pages, which the Government will consider. I note the right hon. Lady's request that, when the Chancellor gives his response to that important report, not only about the past but for the future, he come to the House to make an oral statement.
	The right hon. Lady asked whether the Prime Minister will make an oral statement on Iraq before the House rises. If there is to be an oral statement on Monday or Tuesday next week, it will be announced in the usual way.

Jim Sheridan: May we have a debate on inaccurate reporting by the British press? The Leader of the House may know that I had a ten-minute Bill on Tuesday on the inadequate powers of the Press Complaints Commission. During my contribution, I highlighted the case of Robert Murat, who was found guilty and convicted by the British press in the disappearance of Madeleine McCann. How many more Robert Murats will it take before action is taken to impress on the press its responsibility to society to report what is going on accurately?

Harriet Harman: I commend my hon. Friend for the points that he raised in his ten-minute Bill. We all believe that the press should report accurately and that, if they make a mistake, they should retract and apologise promptly. The Press Complaints Commission should act vigorously, and the Government will keep those issues under review.

Robert Smith: rose—

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Robert Smith: I join the rest of the House in conveying best wishes to everyone for the summer recess. Although Members of Parliament may not be here, many staff will be working extra hard to ensure that the House remains in good order for when we return in October. I wish all the staff the best in their endeavours.
	On Equitable Life, does the Leader of the House think that it would have been more appropriate for the Chancellor to make an oral statement today? The Government had the draft report for 17 months and every hon. Member will have constituents who have been affected. Should not the Chancellor have come here today to give at least an initial apology, even if he has to take time to consider exactly how he will respond to the need for compensation? I agree that there should definitely be an oral statement in October, when hon. Members can question the Chancellor about his reaction to the ombudsman.
	On coastguard pay, which my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) raised with the Prime Minister yesterday, will the Leader of the House make sure that the Prime Minister comes to the House to clarify that the coastguard pay dispute is not part of the recent public sector pay round, but a long, ongoing dispute, which has been so badly handled that coastguards are having to have compulsory pay rises to make sure that they do not fall foul of minimum wage provisions? It is a totally different issue from the ongoing public sector pay dispute.
	On Members' pay, my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow), in question reference number 217714, asked the Leader of the House how the calculation for Members' pay would work and whether she could give him examples of the results that the formula would have produced over the past 10 years. Her deputy replied:
	"The information requested is not easily obtainable within the normal time scale for answering written parliamentary questions. I will write to the hon. Member shortly"—[ Official Report, 15 July 2008; Vol. 479, c. 229W.]
	Surely, the fact that the House has a pay system that is so complicated that even the right hon. and learned Lady's own Department cannot answer questions on it within the time scale available suggests that we have come up with a rather inappropriate system, and the House will have to revisit that.
	The House will rise until October. Come October, it will be almost too late for the Government to come up with a serious strategy for tackling the rising cost of fuel as it affects our constituents going into the winter—particularly those who are not on the gas main, because the price of oil has gone through the roof. We need concrete proposals from the Government now, because the time taken to implement them will be an important factor. Will the Leader of the House make sure before the House rises that the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform makes proposals to tackle fuel poverty among those who are not on the gas main?
	Finally, will the Leader of the House ensure before the House rises that the Department for Work and Pensions makes a statement saying what is happening to the card account and the payment of pensions and benefits. The Post Office is a unique institution—it is the only one with outlets throughout the rural areas of this country—but the Government have imposed access criteria on it. If the Department for Work and Pensions, for administrative convenience, awards the card account contract to anyone but the Post Office, people throughout rural Britain will find it difficult to collect their pensions in the way that the Government have promised they will be able to. Will the Leader of the House therefore ensure that a statement is made on the issue before the House rises so that Members can question and respond to it? Will she ensure that the statement is not left until the recess? If the Government do wait until the recess, will that not send a warning to our many constituents that the Government are planning yet again to ditch the Post Office and take more business away from it.

Harriet Harman: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his appearance on the Front Bench at business questions, which is clearly very popular. He raised the issue of pay in the Maritime and Coastguard Agency, which has been raised on many occasions in the House. Great value is placed on the work of those in the agency, and there is concern that there should be a settlement that is acceptable to all as soon as possible.
	On Equitable Life, we have all been concerned about the many individuals who have been affected one way or another by the problems there. That has had a very big impact. We are obviously pleased that the report has been completed, but the time for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to make a statement about which of the proposals arising from the review he will take forward is when the report has been published and everybody has had the opportunity to reflect on it.
	The hon. Gentleman mentioned the question raised by the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam, who wrote to ask what Members' pay increases would have been in the past if the formula had been the same as the one that we have agreed for the future. There is no complexity about the formula, which takes the median increase for a basket of 15 different occupations; it is about tracking back to see what the pay increases for those different occupations have been over previous years so that we can do what is in fact a very simple calculation. However, I will deal with that as soon as possible.
	On fuel poverty, the fact that the House is rising does not mean that the Government will not remain completely focused on and concerned about how we can do more to ensure that people have their homes insulated and that businesses are energy efficient, how we can increase the supply of energy through renewables and how we can deal with all the problems relating to energy. The fact that the House is rising will not mean that the issue will not be a major Government concern.
	The hon. Gentleman raised another issue that is a concern in the House and more widely—the Post Office card account. Hon. Members will know that it is subject to public procurement rules, but the Post Office has put in a bid. However, no hon. Members will be in any doubt about how important the issue is to the post office network.

Tony Lloyd: Will my right hon. and learned Friend consider having a debate on sentencing policy for those found guilty of human trafficking and modern forms of slavery? I ask that not in the light of highly paid footballers, but because of a recent case where an accountant trafficked a 14-year-old Ghanaian girl into the UK and kept her as an unpaid servant—or possibly slave—for a number of years, but was sentenced to only 18 months in prison. Should the courts not be giving exemplary sentences, to ensure that we send out the signal that those who traffic human beings will face the wrath of the courts and the retribution of the British legal system?

Harriet Harman: My hon. Friend raises an important issue. It is important that those who have committed human trafficking offences are brought to justice, not only for the sake of their victims, but as a deterrent to others. It is important, too, that the courts pass sentences that make it clear to people all around the world that this country will not be a safe haven for human traffickers. My hon. Friend made a point about sentencing. I understand that the Sentencing Advisory Panel considered the issue of human trafficking a couple of years ago, along with sexual offences more broadly. However, if I am not right on that, I will ask the Home Secretary whether it would be appropriate to refer the issue to the Sentencing Advisory Panel, bearing in mind the fact that she is looking into the question of human trafficking.

William Cash: The Leader of the House will know that the instrument of ratification for the Lisbon treaty was deposited by written statement only about an hour ago. Does she accept that that is, effectively, bullying the Irish, who voted no unequivocally, that it is unprecedented, in the sense that when the French and the Dutch voted no, the Government did not proceed with ratification, and furthermore that there are a number of legal actions outstanding, including my own against the Foreign Secretary in the High Court, on the question of ratification. This is a gross impertinence and a disgraceful—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Questions are supposed to be about the business for the following week, but the hon. Gentleman has put his complaint on the record, so I will move on.

Kevan Jones: Will my right hon. and learned Friend consider having a debate on Northern Rock, particularly in the light of the revelation in the  Daily Mirror this week that the current management are spending £130,000 pursuing the whistleblower who exposed the outrageous bonuses that the previous management were paying themselves? Is it right that what is now our money should be used in that way?

Harriet Harman: I shall refer the matter that my hon. Friend raises to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Everyone is agreed that those in the private sector should receive big rewards only where something has been successful—there should not be rewards for failure. People should bear in mind the law that the House passed setting out that remuneration must be decided while also reflecting on the average levels of remuneration in the company as a whole.

David Heath: May we have a debate on the Government's pharmacy White Paper? There is an awful lot of good in the White Paper, which I would support, but there is also a proposal that would devastate rural GP practices that dispense, such as Langport in my constituency. If I had had any doubts about the value that local people put on that GP dispensary, they would have been corrected by the volume of letters that I have received. May we have a debate about the implications of the White Paper on rural GP dispensing? Is the proposal perhaps not another example of the Government simply not understanding the needs of rural areas?

Harriet Harman: The hon. Gentleman will know that the issue is subject to consultation, which will precede the health Bill, which is in the Government's draft legislative programme. However, he makes an important point about how we ensure that we understand the implications of all Government policy and Bills for rural areas, as well as for urban areas. Therefore, I will raise the point that he makes not only with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health, but with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, who has already answered questions in the House this morning.

Anne Moffat: May we have a debate on delivering quality public services? I should like to congratulate Lothian Buses—the only publicly owned bus company in Scotland and the largest in the UK—on winning the prestigious best bus operator award 2008. Pilmar Smith, the chairman, who lives in north Berwick in my constituency, has played an exemplary role in support of the work force and in the company's success.

Harriet Harman: I join my hon. Friend in congratulating Pilmar Smith and the work force of Lothian buses. I understand that this is not the first time that it has won that award, which is a demonstration of a public company delivering quality public services.

Michael Spicer: What is the exact position after the vote on 3 July on the definition of main residence for tax purposes, and that for claiming parliamentary allowances?

Harriet Harman: What is clear is that we need to have a congruence—that the main residence for tax purposes should be the same as the main residence for the purposes of claiming from the additional costs allowance. However, if hon. Members think that it would be helpful, I can, following the debate, write to them setting out the changes that have been agreed to main or second residences.

Andrew MacKinlay: Will my right hon. and learned Friend have discussions during the recess through the usual channels about the arrangements for 11 November, which this year is a Tuesday? She will notice that this year is the 90th anniversary of the ending of world war one, with all the social, political, military and legal implications that go with that. Would this year not be a good occasion on which to reinstate the wreath-laying ceremony, which used to take place at our war memorial at St. Stephen's entrance, but which was lost when the security boxes were put there some decades ago? This year will be a great occasion for Parliament to commemorate and use our war memorial in a very decent way, so I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will discuss this with you, Mr. Speaker, and others.

Harriet Harman: My hon. Friend makes a very good suggestion. I will, as he proposes, discuss it with Mr. Speaker and I hope to make progress on it.

Patrick Cormack: May I thank the Leader of the House for what she has just said? In view of the fact that there are many, in all parts of the House, who do not think that Front Benchers from any party should be on Select Committees, will she at least give us the assurance that when we debate the report on regional Committees, there will be a completely free vote, as there always should be on House of Commons matters?

Harriet Harman: Ever since it was established, the Modernisation Committee has been different from other Select Committees, in that not only does its membership include a Minister, but it is chaired by the Leader of the House, who is the Leader of the House, a Minister and a member of the Cabinet. On regional Committees, it is always the case that matters relating to the formation of Committees are matters for the House.

Jon Trickett: May we have a debate on the minimum wage—one of the great historic achievements of the first phase of our Labour Government—so that we can celebrate the current upgrading that will affect 1 million people, 100,000 of them in Yorkshire and the Humber? Could we use such a debate to say that we are going to get very tough indeed on firms such as the one in my constituency that employs young women on a day-by-day basis and gives them £25 cash after nine hours of work, only to tell them that they are no longer needed? The women are expected to keep quiet and not blow the whistle. Is it not time that we got tough with rogue or cowboy employers of that kind?

Harriet Harman: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We need strict laws to protect vulnerable employees from exploitation and we also need to ensure that they are effectively enforced. I congratulate him on the work that he, along with other hon. Members, has done to make sure that that is what happens.

Nigel Dodds: I join others in thanking all the Officers and staff of the House for their hard work over this parliamentary Session and I wish them a restful recess.
	Will the Government make it clear that over the summer recess period they will not join other European Governments and Heads of Government in the growing campaign led by President Sarkozy, who is due to visit the Irish Republic shortly, to bully and harass people who, on a free vote, made it clear that they reject the Lisbon treaty? Will the Government use the recess period finally to make up their minds to abandon a treaty that is, frankly, unwanted and undemocratic?

Harriet Harman: The reason that this House and the other place passed the provisions on the Lisbon treaty is that we recognise that, if we want a strong economy, we have to work closely with the European Union. Similarly, if we want to tackle the menace of climate change and cross-border crime, we have to work strongly with our partners in the European Union. We think that it is in Britain's interest to be at the heart of Europe and that it is in Europe's interest that Britain should play a leading part in it. We also recognise that, with more member states of the EU, we need to change the rules so that it works as efficiently and effectively as possible. Having established our position and discussed it here and in the other place, there is no question of the Government bullying or harassing any other country.

Ian Cawsey: My right hon. and learned Friend will be aware of the concern of animal welfare groups, and particularly dog welfare groups, about the growth in the use of electric shock collars. What she may not be aware of is that both the Welsh Assembly and the Scottish Parliament are looking at ways of outlawing the use of those devices. Will she arrange for a statement to highlight how our Government will work with the devolved Administrations to ensure that there is a consistent approach, so that English dogs are not dogged by devolution?

Harriet Harman: I congratulate my hon. Friend on all the work that he does on the full range of animal welfare issues. I will pass on the matter that he has raised to the relevant Ministers. If we need to make any further changes to promote animal welfare, we will.
	In case I created any confusion in my earlier response, let me clarify that the creation of Committees is House business, which means that the creation of regional Committees is House business and it is not whipped. The membership of Committees is whipped, but Select Committees elect their own Chairs.

George Young: Reverting to a question that my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) asked about Equitable Life, last week the Leader of the House invited us to wait and see what the ombudsman said. What the ombudsman has said is:
	"I recognise that my recommendations raise questions which are now properly ones for Parliament and Government together to consider."
	Although I welcome what the right hon. and learned Lady said about the Chancellor making a statement, does she accept that that does not go far enough? What we need is a debate in Government time on a substantive motion on which the House can vote. Will she undertake to provide that?

Harriet Harman: The right hon. Gentleman has made his position clear, as has the shadow Leader of the House. I think that we are all concerned about people who lost out as a result of what happened to Equitable Life and we are all concerned to understand where the responsibility lies and where regulation should have been improved—as it can and has been. There will be full consideration in government and we will see how we can ensure that this House has a proper chance to question, possibly debate—[Hon. Members: "And vote"]—and even vote on the results.

Lindsay Hoyle: Will the Leader of the House consider giving time to debate the anti-family friendly policies introduced by Tesco? People can spend £50—say, on alcohol—and get a voucher for 5p off fuel, whereas if they spend £50 on infantile or baby food products, they do not qualify for a voucher. That seems absolutely absurd. It seems that "Every little helps"—except if you are a little one.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Harriet Harman: I congratulate my hon. Friend on raising that important point. Tesco will see that the matter has been raised on the Floor of the House and will note the response of hon. Members.
	In respect of my previous answer to the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young), the banking reform Bill is in our draft legislative programme, so if hon. Members want to table amendments to deal with issues surrounding Equitable Life, they will have an opportunity to do so and then to debate and vote on them. That is not instead of, but in addition to what I said earlier.

Pete Wishart: Given that the Chancellor has been panicked into rewriting his Budget in the face of the sustained Scottish National party challenge in Glasgow, East, will he make a full statement to the House? If the fuel duty freeze proves to be too little, too late, will it be the job of the right hon. and learned Lady to go to Downing street next Friday morning and tell this useless Prime Minister to go?

Mr. Speaker: Order. We really must use more temperate language in the House. The hon. Gentleman's question was not about next week's business; it was more about a by-election in my native city, so we will leave it there.

Fraser Kemp: This week, the annual report of the chief medical officer was published. It dealt predominantly with tackling problems relating to young people's health. Will the Leader of the House consider making time available for a debate on that important issue, particularly to allow Members the opportunity to raise concerns about their constituents—for example, about the screening of young women for cervical cancer. It would be beneficial if we had an opportunity to talk about the health issues faced by young people.

Harriet Harman: Perhaps we should consider that subject for a topical debate at some future time. I draw my hon. Friend's attention to the fact that there will be an opportunity to raise those important issues with Health Ministers at oral questions next Tuesday.

Stewart Jackson: The Leader of the House will be aware that earlier this week the Select Committee on Communities and Local Government published a report on community cohesion, which found that the Government's policy of uncontrolled immigration has caused sustained damage to community relations and community cohesion across the UK, including in my constituency. When may we have a debate on the linked issues of the population statistics of the Office for National Statistics, the audit of local authorities affected by large-scale immigration and the grant funding to authorities—including my own Peterborough city council—particularly affected by this issue?

Harriet Harman: The question of immigration and its effect on different local authorities has been considered, as the hon. Gentleman said, by the Select Committee on Communities and Local Government. It has produced its report, but it certainly did not include the point that the Government had a policy of "uncontrolled immigration". The Government will reflect on the report and respond in due course.

Margaret Moran: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that, in their wisdom, the football authorities have penalised Luton Town football club by deducting 30 points for misdemeanours perpetrated by previous owners? Will she allow an early debate on ensuring that the football authorities impose penalties on those who are truly responsible rather than on innocent fans, and will she ensure that the football authorities do not have a remit effectively to kill football clubs such as mine?

Harriet Harman: My hon. Friend has raised on many occasions the question of Luton Town football club, which clearly plays an important role in the life of the city that she represents. I will draw her point to the attention of Ministers in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport.

Julian Lewis: Next time the Leader of the House bumps into the Secretary of State for Defence— [Interruption.] I know that he is coming in a moment. Will she ask him for a statement on how much time he has been able to spend on the two medium-sized conflicts in which our armed forces are currently engaged, and how much time he has been having to spend, as Secretary of State for Scotland, on the battle for the by-election in Glasgow, East?

Mr. Speaker: Order. To be even-handed, I rule that as the by-election is next week we should worry about that when it comes.

Peter Soulsby: I welcome the announcement by the Leader of the House that she intends to publish a Command Paper next Monday responding speedily to the Modernisation Committee's report on regional accountability. She will know that members of the Committee heard overwhelming evidence of the need for proper accountability for the £2.3 billion a year spent by regional development agencies, and a proper mechanism to hold regional Ministers to account. Will she be equally speedy in bringing forward to the House mechanisms to ensure that the proposals of the Modernisation Committee are put into effect?

Harriet Harman: My hon. Friend makes the case extremely well, and I will do exactly that.

Tony Baldry: When the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government first proposed eco-towns, she brought forward a list of 15 and said that the Government hoped to have at least 10. The only difficulty is that today, the fifth of those dropped out, so from 15 we are now down to 10. Will the Leader of the House give an undertaking that no further announcement will be made on eco-towns until the House returns in the autumn, when we can have a topical debate to discuss the merits of those eco-town proposals remaining? That will give the Government an opportunity during the summer recess to reflect on the wisdom of progressing with many of those eco-town proposals.

Harriet Harman: Over the past month, the House has had a number of opportunities to discuss eco-towns. As my right hon. Friend the Minister for Housing set out, we will make progress on the question of eco-towns, to ensure that we have more housing and that it is sustainable.

Dennis Skinner: When my right hon. and learned Friend answered my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, South (Margaret Moran)—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must ask the hon. Gentleman whether he was here at the beginning of the statement.

Dennis Skinner: I was here long before this business began.

Mr. Speaker: I will allow the hon. Gentleman to continue.

Dennis Skinner: I came in at five minutes to 11. Is that enough?

Mr. Speaker: That will do. That is why you are standing.

Dennis Skinner: That is right.
	My right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House answered a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, South about the problems with Luton Town football club, and the fact that it was being treated badly. If she—or someone on behalf of the appropriate Committee—makes representations to the Football Association, will they bear in mind that it seems significant that small clubs such as Luton, and Chesterfield a few years ago, have points deducted, but West Ham got involved in a major wrangle over two players last year and did not have points deducted as was supposed to happen? It looks to me like there is one law for the small clubs and another for those in the premier league. That ought to be brought to the FA's attention.

Harriet Harman: Hon. Members are well aware that the small clubs play every bit as important a role as the big clubs, and should be treated fairly. I will bring my hon. Friend's point, and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, South (Margaret Moran), to the attention of Ministers in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport.

Alistair Burt: Can we have an urgent debate on the powers and effectiveness of the Healthcare Commission? In my constituency, Milton Park hospital, run by Brookdale Care, has in its first three years of existence had four inspection reports from the Healthcare Commission, all of which have ranged from poor to appalling. It is currently going through another inquiry following the death of a patient. I am not sure whether the Healthcare Commission has all the powers and effectiveness that it needs, and a debate would help to clarify that.

Harriet Harman: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, and I suggest that he draws it to the attention of Ministers at oral questions on health next Tuesday.

Mark Lancaster: Can we have a debate on grandparents' rights? My constituents, Terry and Iris Lightfoot, who look after their grandchild, have been told that they can enjoy the formal and financial protection of becoming foster parents only by putting their grandchild into care with the local authority. They do not want to do that, because of the potential damage that it will do to the child. Although special checks are desperately needed, is it right that grandparents should have to take such action in order to carry on looking after their grandchildren?

Harriet Harman: With more and more mothers going out to work, the role of grandparents, which has become more important, is absolutely pivotal. Many families just could not cope without the active role of grandparents, and that is the case for all families, whether or not they are in difficulties—although it is particularly the case for families who get into difficulties. Improving support for grandparents is an ongoing concern, and I will bring the hon. Gentleman's points to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families.

Andrew Robathan: Whether the Leader of the House publishes her recommendations before or after the recess, can she give a statement on the vexed issue of allowances in the near future, and particularly on the relationship between MPs' allowances and MEPs' allowances? Yesterday, she said that there is
	"an independent financial audit for each"—
	Labour—
	"MEP's total expenditure every year, which is then published on their website."—[ Official Report, 16 July 2008; Vol. 479, c. 272.]
	Unfortunately, that is not correct. It is not published anywhere. All that must happen is that
	"The Auditors report has to be presented to the EPLP by 31st March."

Harriet Harman: As we are discussing the business for next week, I do not want to detain the House on issues that were debated at length yesterday on an Opposition motion. On the question of expenses of MEPs, and how Labour MEPs deal with the issue, my understanding is that there is a voluntary arrangement whereby Labour MEPs put their expenses on their own websites.  [Interruption.] That is what I understand the position to be.

Philip Hollobone: In 2006-07, 2,500 fixed penalty notices were issued in Northamptonshire for crimes including shoplifting, drunkenness and criminal damage, but only 836 were actually paid. Can we have a debate in Government time about the effectiveness of the fixed penalty notice system as a part of the criminal justice?

Harriet Harman: My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will make a statement on policing later this afternoon, so perhaps the hon. Gentleman will raise those issues with her.

Andrew Tyrie: Hundreds of thousands of Equitable Life policyholders know that the Government did everything that they could to obstruct the report that has been published, and to delay the time when that investigation reached its conclusions. That has been confirmed by the ombudsman, who said that it was "iniquitous" and "unfair" that the Government failed to establish a single inquiry in 2001. Policyholders, who have been waiting eight years, want to know whether the foot dragging will now end, so that they can find out how much compensation they will get. It seems that we are getting more foot dragging from the Leader of the House right now. Can we at least have a debate, even a short debate, in Government time, to establish the criteria by which compensation will be assessed and paid, or are the Government too fearful of the £4 billion overhang that will hit an already distressed public sector financial deficit?

Harriet Harman: I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's points or the implications that lie behind them. I have said how the Government propose to deal with the important report of the ombudsman on Equitable Life. I have nothing further to add.

Christopher Chope: I hope that the Leader of the House will respond to this question. She said earlier that the press should apologise promptly when they get it wrong. The Government have got it wrong on Equitable Life. Why will they not do the ombudsman's bidding and apologise now? Why can they not put a stop to their weasel words on the issue?

Harriet Harman: I do not want to draw out the issue, because two important statements are coming up. However, hon. Members should recognise that the problems in Equitable Life started to arise under a regulatory regime that was the responsibility not of this Government, but of the previous Government. If Conservative Members have joined us in being concerned that there should be proper regulation of the private sector, we welcome that.

Ian Liddell-Grainger: I must go back to the vexed question of Somerset. I have carried out the right hon. and learned Lady's advice, but it now turns out that the deal with IBM, on which I want a debate, was negotiated on 21 February last year. They got the joint venture because of secret meetings, even though the bid was £25 million more expensive than the next nearest bidder. The only councillor who had the guts to stand up was Paul Buchanan, who was taken to the Standards Board for England on 55 charges by the chief executive of the county council. When I tried to sort the case out on his behalf, I was threatened with legal action by the Standards Board—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but the questions are getting longer and longer. We have quite a long list of business items to deal with today. I think that the right hon. and learned Lady might have got the sense of what the hon. Gentleman is saying.  [ Interruption. ] The look of puzzlement on her face induces me to allow one final sentence from Mr. Liddell-Grainger.

Ian Liddell-Grainger: May we have a debate on the situation in Somerset and the joint venture between Somerset county council and IBM?

Harriet Harman: I have on previous occasions suggested that if the hon. Gentleman wants such a debate he ought to look to Westminster Hall or an Adjournment debate. I was looking slightly dismayed, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because I think that it is very important that we do not stray into making serious allegations under the protection of the privilege of this House that we would not make outside the House or if we did not have that privilege.

John Bercow: I wish the Leader of the House an enjoyable recess and thank her warmly for next Monday's debate on speech, language and communication services. May we please have a debate in Government time, preferably on the Floor of the House, on autism? Given that of the estimated 500,000 people in this country on the autistic spectrum only 15 per cent. become independent as adults, 40 per cent. live with their parents all their lives and a mere 12 per cent. are engaged in paid work, is it not timely now for us to debate the Government's autism strategy in the interests of some of the most vulnerable people in our communities?

Harriet Harman: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his report. As he says, the House will have an opportunity, which I know that it welcomes, to debate the subject on Monday. The question of provision and support for those with autism in their families will be centre stage in that debate.

Graham Stuart: May I ask the Leader of the House to speak to the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families and ask him to make a statement to the House on the chaos that has engulfed the key stages 2 and 3 SATs exams? The Secretary of State has admitted that 120,000 pupils will not have their results by the end of term and the Chairman of the Select Committee on Children, Schools and Families, on which I sit, has said that those who have just recently passed A-levels have been marking those papers. Is it not time that the Secretary of State did what he has so far refused to do—that is, that he apologised in this House?

Harriet Harman: The Secretary of State gave evidence about those issues to the Select Committee yesterday. He has set up an inquiry under Lord Sutherland of Houndwood, which will report in the autumn. The hon. Gentleman will know that the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority has responsibility for the contract to manage the service. Many key stage 2 results for 11-year-olds went out on Tuesday and more will go out tomorrow. More key stage 3 results will go out tomorrow. The Secretary of State has said clearly that he believes that the situation is unacceptable and that is why he has established the inquiry.

Service Personnel

Des Browne: With permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the service personnel Command Paper, which I am publishing today and which has been laid before the House.
	The men and women of our armed forces are a force for good. I know that the whole House is proud of the work that they do in dangerous and challenging circumstances, whether in Iraq or Afghanistan, or closer to home. All around the world, every day, they demonstrate their courage, dedication and professionalism, risking injury and death in the service of their country. They are a credit to the nation.
	Increasingly, the level of support provided to our forces by the Government, and also more widely by the nation, has come under scrutiny from the public, the media and, most importantly, those in the services and their families. It is absolutely right that that should be the case. If we ask our forces to risk their lives in order to keep us safe, we should all be prepared to look after them while they are in service and afterwards. I believe that we have made a number of big improvements to the lives of our people in the past two years.
	We have introduced the first ever tax-free operational bonus, we have invested substantial additional money to improve our armed forces' accommodation and we have awarded them among the highest pay increases in the public sector. However, we can and should do more. Last year, the Prime Minister and I asked ministerial colleagues across government what more we could do and should be doing to demonstrate our gratitude for the service and sacrifice of our service personnel. The result, led by my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces, is today's Command Paper—the first ever truly cross-Government approach to demonstrating our commitment to the armed forces.
	The Command Paper was not just a cross-Government effort. We also consulted our external reference group, among others, widely and in detail. That group comprised the Royal British Legion, the Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Families Association, the Confederation of British Service and ex-Service Organisations, the armed forces families' federations and the War Widows Association of Great Britain. I am delighted that they have so warmly welcomed the publication of this paper and will continue to work with us on its delivery.
	This Command Paper is underpinned by two fundamental principles. The first is to remove any disadvantage. The nature of their work and the requirements of service life means that our people, and their families, can face disadvantage in their daily lives. Many of them move locations frequently, often with no choice of where or when, and schooling can be disrupted as a result. They might lose their place on a national health service waiting list, for example, or lose out on an in vitro fertilisation procedure. Many of the measures in the paper are therefore aimed at ending that disadvantage. They seek to ensure that service personnel and their families receive continuity of public services wherever they are based and wherever they are obliged to move.
	The second fundamental principle is that where special treatment is required in order to recognise those who have sacrificed the most, we must and should provide it. This is a comprehensive package of 40 measures covering almost every aspect of life, from health care, education and transport to housing, resettlement and the care of veterans.
	I want to highlight just a few of the commitments that we are announcing today. Right hon. and hon. Members are only too aware of the terrible price that some members of our armed forces have paid, suffering mental and physical injuries that will be with them and their families for the rest of their lives. Every Member of this House would agree with me that as a Government we should be willing to make the following commitment: if those personnel have been injured serving their nation, then the Government and the nation must ensure that we support them as much as they need for as long as they need. We must aim to offer the best possible continuous care from the point of injury, through to recovery and beyond, for the rest of their life. The measures set out in the paper are aimed at doing just that.
	One of the key changes that we are announcing today is an increase in the compensation payments for personnel who suffer injuries due to their service. I understand that no amount of money can ever make up for the pain and sacrifice that these brave people have endured. However, we need to recognise the special nature of their sacrifice. The top-level tariffs in the armed forces compensation scheme will be doubled, affecting about 80 of the most seriously injured people who have already made claims since the scheme began in 2005. Obviously, it will apply to the most serious claims in future.
	These things are quite complex as the compensation scheme has many different levels. In practical terms, though, that means that the lump sum awarded for the most serious injuries, which was previously between about £50,000 and £285,000, will double. The new maximum award for an injury will be £570,000. Everyone with an award for injury under the compensation scheme will benefit and the most seriously injured will benefit the most. On discharge, the most seriously injured will also continue to get tax-free income throughout their lives—the annual guaranteed income payment, which is also index-linked—so overall the lifetime payout could be in excess of £1.5 million. Furthermore, these compensation payments for those who are severely disabled will now be disregarded from the local authority means test when they are applying for the disabled facilities grant. That means that seriously injured personnel who receive a lump sum under the armed forces compensation scheme or war pension scheme will not have to spend that money adapting their homes. That money was intended by this House to be compensation for serious injuries, and this approach will guarantee that that intention is fulfilled.
	That change is in addition to a host of other changes: seriously injured personnel will be prioritised in waiting lists for adapted social housing; we will roll out community mental health services for veterans nationwide, following successful pilots launched earlier this year; at the earliest opportunity, we will extend free bus travel across England to those service personnel and veterans under the age of 60 who have been seriously injured through service, and Scotland and Wales will do similar; and finally, severely disabled veterans will have an automatic entitlement to blue badges, which provide parking concessions, for life.
	Everyone in this House knows that none of those things can make up for the injuries that some people will bear for the remainder of their lives. Nothing can do that. We owe this immense debt, and although it can never sufficiently be repaid, we should, and we will, do our utmost to acknowledge it. The Government will also strive to mitigate the disruptive consequences of mobility on family and everyday life. For example, we will provide continuity of national health service care for service families by ensuring that they retain their relative place on NHS waiting lists across the UK, however often they move, and we will take steps to improve NHS dentists for service families.
	We will also minimise the disruption to education suffered by many service children. To that end, we will do the following: review admissions policy to ensure that service children are treated fairly in the allocation of school places; ensure that special educational needs support is uninterrupted when children move schools; and give service children priority access to places at state boarding schools.
	Those who choose to leave the armed forces will enjoy a greater level of support, ensuring a smooth transition to civilian life. We will give free further or higher education to service leavers of more than six years' experience, up to first degree level. That means that a soldier, sailor or airman can join the armed forces from school, secure in the knowledge that six or more years' service will be rewarded with the chance of a college or university education free from tuition fees. We will also make it easier for service leavers to find homes, whether through the purchase of their own properties or through social housing. We recognise that the mobility of the average service career—typically, people move every two years—means that individuals often prefer to wait until they leave the armed forces before buying a home. For that reason, we will extend the key worker living scheme so that service personnel are eligible for its assistance to purchase homes for one year after they leave the forces.
	Social housing will also be more accessible to service leavers. In the past, service leavers had difficulties obtaining social housing, as local authorities prioritise individuals with a "local connection" to the area. This legislation will be changed, enabling personnel to establish a "local connection" and so settle in the location of their choice. That is not all, because we will make empty MOD properties available to service leavers as an interim measure, and we will work with the Department for Communities and Local Government, the Housing Corporation and charities to reduce the incidence of homelessness, which will include building new supported housing on gifted MOD land.
	In this Command Paper, the Government have listened to the real needs of the service community and responded to those identified needs, introducing real improvements. We are as committed to our armed forces and veterans as they are committed to us, and we will deliver on these promises; after all, it is the very least we can do. The measures I have outlined are the Government's—and, indeed, the nation's—commitment to honour and care for those who have sacrificed most in service to their country, and let me make it absolutely clear that this is for the long term. It is the product of many months of concerted effort by Government Departments and the devolved Administrations. We are determined to make this stick, and we will put in place mechanisms to ensure that we deliver. I commend this Command Paper on the nation's commitment to our armed forces, their families and veterans to the House.

Liam Fox: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for his statement and for prior sight of it. Conservatives welcome any measures to help our armed forces and their families, and indeed many of the proposals announced today echo proposals that we have made over the past year. Although it may have taken a long time for the Government to introduce this package of measures, if this is the beginning of a genuinely constructive and bipartisan approach to the welfare of our armed forces, their families and service veterans, the whole country will welcome it.
	No other group in our society is asked to make the sort of sacrifices that our armed forces make on our behalf. Those on both sides of the House who have visited our troops in Iraq or Afghanistan know the hardships that they face. Those who have talked to service families about how they feel when they hear that another soldier has been killed or injured but they have not yet learned the name of the person involved marvel at their courage. Those who have visited young soldiers in Selly Oak or Headley Court have been humbled by the soldiers' lack of self pity in the face of great adversity.
	May I ask the Secretary of State to clarify a number of points in his statement, starting with the compensation issue? We welcome the doubling of the maximum award for the most seriously injured, but he will be aware that the points system determines eligibility for the most serious injury payment and that it has attracted much criticism. That issue has been raised by hon. Members on both sides of the House. Does he believe that the system is sufficiently holistic in its approach? What plans are there for a review of it, and when will that take place?
	Secondly, the Secretary of State said, "Everyone with an award for injury under the compensation scheme will benefit". Will he clarify that? Does he mean that there will be an automatic uprating of all awards made since 2005, and if so, when will such changes be made? What of those injured in Iraq or Afghanistan before 2005? What changes will be made to bring their treatment and compensation into line with the changes announced today for those injured after 2005? The public will find it hard to accept an arbitrary date for discrimination in treatment. May I remind the House that between 1 January 2003 and 31 December 2005, 33 UK military personnel were categorised as very seriously injured and 78 were categorised as seriously injured, and that in Afghanistan between 2001 and 2005, six were categorised as very seriously injured and four as seriously injured? What will happen to them?
	Can the Secretary of State also tell us how many claims have been made by former service personnel against the MOD in the civil courts, how many such claims are outstanding and what the estimated liability is? What assessment has he made of the likely impact of today's statement on those claims? Finally, will more money be made available from the Treasury for the changes that he has announced today, and if so, how much? We do not want the MOD to be forced to cut other parts of an already overstretched budget.
	We welcome other moves that have been announced, but we will want to examine the practicalities. For example, providing good mental health services to veterans requires better integration between defence medicine and the NHS, and although the aim of providing better access to NHS dentistry for service families is desirable, it will not be helped by the fact that the number of NHS dentists declined by a further 500 in 2007.
	We would also like to re-examine the issue of the educational status of those leaving the forces, which the Secretary of State mentioned. Many of those who have taken an interest in this issue point out that the underskilling of those who leave the services early is often a greater problem than the one in respect of those leaving after six years. I hope that the Government will re-examine how such people might also be helped.
	Finally, may I thank all in the media, in charities and among the general public who have campaigned so tirelessly for the better treatment of our service personnel and their families, and our veterans? Specifically, may I thank Freddie Forsyth and his team, which includes Simon Weston, for the work that they have done for the commission that was set up by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition on service welfare? I hope that the Secretary of State will acknowledge what has been a great act of public service on their part.
	How we deal with our armed forces is symptomatic of the values of our society. Ultimately, we will have to deal with the overstretch that contributes to many of the problems that those in our armed forces and their families face, but today there has been a welcome acknowledgement of how much needs to be done.

Des Browne: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his welcome of this package. I appreciate that he has not had the time to go through it in detail, but as he understands more about it and the impact that it will have, he will recognise that it faithfully represents the issues that members of the armed forces and their advocates, including those organisations he identified, have brought to our attention. We have been engaged in a detailed and ongoing consultation, which we announced last year.
	I say to the hon. Gentleman that we should all avoid trying to stand on that small space normally occupied by  The Sun, and claiming to be "the persons wot dunnit". There will be significant competition for the credit for these proposals, but they are the result of a genuinely co-operative effort, which has been going on in some detail for a long time, to identify the needs of our service personnel. The announcement reflects the issues that service people and their families brought to us through various organisations and in several ways. For example, many people contacted us about their individual circumstances, but we have an obligation to keep those communications confidential.
	The hon. Gentleman asked several questions about the uplift in the tariff rates of the armed forces scheme. I am satisfied that the tariff approach to a no-fault compensation scheme is the only fair way to conduct that process. He referred in passing to civil claims. When there is an allegation of negligence, one can treat the calculation of compensation differently, but when there is no fault, there has to be transparency and fairness, and some form of tariff. That is now well established in public policy, and previous Governments have had similar schemes.
	I am satisfied that the scheme works and is fair. I am always prepared to consider reviewing it to make it more transparent and fair, but the doubling will go down to tariff level 6; the hon. Gentleman may be familiar with the structure of the scheme. Below that, there will be increases, but they will not be proportionately as large as those for the most seriously injured.
	The hon. Gentleman asks when the changes will come into effect. He will know that, because it is a statutory scheme, they cannot come into effect until the relevant legislation has been laid. Secondary legislation has to be laid, and that requires a period of consultation. We will publish the detail so that people can see the effect of the scheme on the tariff levels as soon as we are able to do so. There will be a short period of consultation, and then I expect, because of the general welcome for the changes, that the House will approve the proposals. We will have a relevant benefit uplift for everybody who has made an application to the scheme since it started in 2005.
	The hon. Gentleman asks me to do something that I am not aware any Government have ever done—to make the scheme retrospective and apply it to people who were compensated or supported under an entirely different scheme of compensation. I hasten to add that the previous scheme was inherited from the previous Government. There was dissatisfaction with that, and we have changed the scheme, but it is not appropriate, in public policy terms, to apply the changes retrospectively to people whose compensation or support was calculated under a different scheme, given that many people—not just those who have been in Iraq—still receive income under that scheme.
	The hon. Gentleman asks whether additional resources will be provided. Substantial additional resources will be provided, but they will be gleaned from the budgets of other Departments. We joined with those Departments and the devolved Administrations to ensure that resources could be identified to meet the principles set out in this paper.
	Finally, on the hon. Gentleman's specific questions, he asked about the civil claims. He will appreciate that I do not have that information with me, but I will ensure that he gets it and that it is shared with him and made available to all Members. I thank him for the tribute that he paid to our armed forces. He knows that I share his view that they are excellent people who do excellent work very bravely and professionally. I am pleased that there is such consensus of welcome for the changes in the House and I hope that we will all work to ensure that they are implemented as quickly as possible and that the Government are kept to their promises.

Willie Rennie: I thank the Secretary of State for giving me advance sight of the statement and for the statement itself. I, too, wish to pay tribute to those who have sacrificed so much for their country, including one of my constituents, Sergeant Scott Paterson, who was recently badly injured in Afghanistan.
	Who could disagree with these welcome proposals, which are a great step in the right direction? The bus travel, the blue badges, the further and higher education and the compensation uplift, as well as the priority in housing, health—especially mental health—and education for veterans, are all positive steps in the right direction. I will withhold judgment, however, until I see the final details, because many of the proposals include proposals to change priorities and move people up lists. Because such changes are complex and fraught with difficulties, I would like to see the details of the proposals before making a final judgment on them. I can pledge the support of this party in making the proposals work effectively on the ground, where support from local councils, the Scottish Parliament or the Welsh Assembly is required.
	I was surprised that no proposals were made to speed up the upgrade of the notoriously poorly maintained single living accommodation. Nor was there anything on the rights of the Gurkhas. Especially given recent coverage of the issue, I would have expected something about their rights to live in this country.
	I was disappointed, although not surprised, that no mention was made of the real issue—the elephant in the room. It is bunkum to suggest that these proposals will address overstretch in our armed forces. We are asking them to do too much on two fronts, in Afghanistan and Iraq. Until we address that serious issue, we will continue to see discontent among our armed forces. I urge the Minister to review our operations, especially in Iraq. The tempo of operations there is placing enormous pressure on our armed forces and their families, and unless the issue is addressed, including withdrawal of our troops from Iraq, we will for ever be fiddling at the edges.

Des Browne: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's warm welcome for the announcements, although he did get to the "but" eventually. I thank him for his tribute to the armed forces and recognise the special contribution that his constituent, Scott Paterson, made. I know of his circumstances, but as Secretary of State, I cannot single him out. He is one of many who have suffered injuries and borne them with great stoicism and courage.
	The hon. Gentleman suggests that the implication of the proposals is that service people will move up lists. That may be the case, but the intention and the principle, which we have stated at the outset, are that members of the armed forces and their families should not be disadvantaged by their circumstances. No member of the armed forces came to me and said that they wanted to be able to jump up lists for treatment or for their children to be treated better than any other children. They said that they did not want their lifestyle, which they accept, to operate to their disadvantage. We are trying to find ways to ensure that that principle is observed. We are not asking for people to jump up lists and, indeed, members of the armed forces and their families would be the last people who would want to queue-jump. They are much more likely to stand back and let others go first, but they do not want to be disadvantaged. That is the point, with respect to the hon. Gentleman.
	The hon. Gentleman also mentioned a failure to deal with the issue of accommodation. When he gets an opportunity to read the paper in detail—the devil is always in the detail—he will see that paragraph 3.5 and the following paragraphs are devoted to accommodation. In part, they point out what has been achieved, and that is something that I think that he does not appreciate. We have invested £1.4 billion in delivering single-living accommodation, and to date that has produced 26,000 new bed spaces. A further 30,000 are planned, as part of a planned investment in accommodation in excess of £8 billion over the next decade. So it is not correct to say that we are not giving accommodation the priority that it deserves.
	Finally, the hon. Gentleman identified what he considers the real issue, and I shall say two things in response. First, I regularly meet our forces doing their jobs in the operational environment. They never complain to me about their morale when they are doing their jobs, because that is when they are at their happiest, most content and most professional. There is no morale problem when we ask people to do what we have trained them to do.
	Secondly, I recognise that our armed forces are operating at a tempo that is beyond what we planned for. I have said time and time again at this Dispatch Box that it is our intention to deal with that. In my term as Secretary of State for Defence, we have already drawn down significantly in Iraq. We are in transition, and we intend to do more in the way of draw-down to resolve the tempo problem.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. May I appeal for the co-operation and understanding of hon. Members? There is another important statement to come and some important business thereafter. May I therefore ask for precise, singleton questions and brief answers? That would be extremely useful.

Kevan Jones: I warmly welcome the Command Paper. I have visited troops in Afghanistan and Iraq in the last three weeks, and they, too, will warmly welcome this paper. How will the paper be put into practice? During the inquiry into health by the Defence Committee, it came to light that although the MOD had clear policies, they were not being implemented with the necessary vigour in places such as the devolved Administration in Scotland. Will my right hon. Friend reassure me and other Members that there will be some over-arching Government body to ensure that the very welcome proposals in the Command Paper are put into practice?

Des Browne: My hon. Friend identifies an important point. I pay tribute to him for the lengths that he goes to, along with some other hon. Members, to make sure that he knows exactly the circumstances of our troops, both in the operational theatre and otherwise. At the heart of the proposal and the infrastructure put in place to support it will be a committee, chaired by the Cabinet Office. Its membership will include representatives of the external reference group who were involved in advising us, as well as representatives of all the Government Departments, including the MOD, that are required to deliver on these promises.
	The committee will meet regularly and report. It will have champions for delivery in each Department, and they will be at director level in the civil service. More than that, the committee will send an annual report on delivery to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and myself, and there will also be a five-yearly review. Finally, given that the devolved Administrations also have a responsibility in these matters, the reports will be sent to the First Ministers in Scotland and Wales, and to the First Minister and Deputy First Minister in Northern Ireland.

Bernard Jenkin: May I echo the welcome that other hon. Members have given this Command Paper? However, will the Secretary of State reflect on the fact that people leaving the armed forces prematurely say that the single most important reason for their decision is the excessive separation from their families? That is a product of the fact that the armed forces have been operating well beyond the defence planning assumptions for most of the years since those assumptions were set in the 1998 strategic defence review. Is it not time now to have a debate about what the defence planning assumptions should be? Even if we were to succeed in withdrawing substantially from Iraq in short order—and I doubt that that is in our national interest—it would not be long before another theatre of operations demanded our attention. That is the role that we pursue in our national interest. Can we have an open and public debate over the next few months about the defence planning assumptions, so that we can begin to recalibrate our defence policy to reflect the world as it is—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We really have not got off to a very good start here.

Des Browne: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his welcome for the Command Paper. That means something to me, as he studies these matters in some detail and knows what he is talking about. He knows, too, that I constantly reflect on the issues that he raises. I do not accept his conclusion about Iraq, because we always make our decisions on the basis of the conditions. There are many opportunities to raise the issues that he mentions in the regular debates that we have in this House on MOD and defence issues. I should be happy to debate them at any time.

Brian Jenkins: First, on behalf of service personnel, their families and their extended families—that is, their parents and even grandparents—may I thank the Secretary of State for the Command Paper? I consider it to be a major improvement in the military covenant for this country. In no way do I wish to appear churlish, but there is one matter that I hope my right hon. Friend will clarify. The Command Paper says that people who leave the service will get one year's key worker status, but it does not mention anything about free higher or further education. When military personnel leave the forces it sometimes takes them two or three years to become acclimatised to civilian life. Will people be given the opportunity to go into free higher or further education even three or four years after leaving the services?

Des Browne: I welcome my hon. Friend's welcome for the paper. He is a member of the Defence Committee and so has significant knowledge that qualifies his welcome. I admit that I am slightly embarrassed that I cannot immediately answer his specific question— [ Interruption.] It is a good point and, since I am the Secretary of State, I can tell him that there will be flexibility in this matter.

Patrick Mercer: May I say to the Secretary of State that these measures are extremely welcome? I wish that the paper had appeared slightly earlier, but I do not want to seem churlish about the measures that it contains. However, the right hon. Gentleman has not mentioned those people who are sick but continue to serve. There has been a huge erosion in fighting power, particularly in our combat arms. For instance, 20 per cent. of the strength of the 3rd Regiment Royal Horse Artillery are unfit for operations, while 39 men in the 1st Battalion Royal Anglian Regiment have been diagnosed with seriously injured hearing and cannot return to the front. That is a matter of grave concern, and it compounds the manning and staffing crisis that our combat arms are facing. Will the Secretary of State give a clear and positive answer about what we are doing about the problem?

Des Browne: As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have invested significantly in the medical care of our armed forces, and at the heart of that is the Royal Centre for Defence Medicine. Our investment has built on reforms initially put in place by the previous Government, although we have radically accelerated those reforms. When the Select Committee examined medical care, it produced a report that I thought was very complimentary. I understand that we face a challenge when it comes to service personnel who are too ill to be deployed, for example, but he will know that Headley Court is the jewel in the UK's crown when it comes to rehabilitative medicine. We have announced an additional investment of £24 million in that facility. We continue to research and invest to ensure that we maintain the health of our armed forces. It is our ability to identify the problems and to respond to them through the Defence Medical Rehabilitation Centre that has inspired the compliments that have been paid to our defence medical services. However, there is still more work to be done.

David Crausby: I thank my right hon. Friend for his excellent statement to the House, but may I ask him to pay particular attention to the mental health problems suffered by our service personnel? Often, they are not revealed for many years. Will he ensure that we have a system for keeping in contact with personnel throughout their lives?

Des Browne: My hon. Friend, who is a member of the Defence Committee, knows that we have been working in this area; in particular the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, my hon. Friend the Member for Halton (Derek Twigg), has been working in this area with some vigour. Apart from the mental health pilots, which were extremely successful and which we are now about to roll out across the country, one of the things that we put in place early was the tracking system to enable us to keep in contact with our people, recognising that the symptoms of mental health problems sometimes have a late onset. So my hon. Friend can be reassured that we are developing that system and we have confidence that we shall be able to keep in touch with our people. Another of the innovations of our approach to mental health is that we now deploy with our troops mental health support staff, both psychiatrists and psychologists' to enable us to deal with these issues in the circumstances where early symptoms sometimes arise.

Nigel Dodds: May I warmly welcome the statement by the Secretary of State today? Our service personnel are doing a fantastic job in very difficult circumstances and they deserve all the help they can get when they leave the service or are injured.
	An issue was raised with application to those who had been previously awarded compensation or previously had adaptations to their home. People will find it difficult to understand why some people will be treated differently now, compared with those who already received compensation at a lower rate. Will the Secretary of State look at that, because I think that that issue will become a bone of contention and undoubtedly will be raised with us by service personnel and their families?

Des Browne: I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman makes in welcoming this announcement. This compensation scheme started in 2005. We have committed ourselves to a system of benefits that will ensure that all those who have been compensated under the scheme will have been treated in exactly the same way as all those who prospectively make an application to the scheme. Those who were dealt with under an entirely different scheme, which operated an entirely different method, are continuing to receive the benefits, although some of them have yet to receive the benefits under the qualifications in that scheme. I think it would be dishonest of me to suggest that any Government would be likely to apply the changes to one scheme retrospectively to an entirely different scheme altogether, but I recognise the point that the hon. Gentleman makes. There may be other ways in which we can support those people, and certainly some of the other improvements that are announced in the document that we have published today will be of benefit to them.

Linda Gilroy: May I join in warmly welcoming the way in which my right hon. Friend has worked with his colleagues across government and listened to people both in this place and outside, and more particularly, to the families? Since I was elected, I have been lobbied by the Army Families Federation and locally in the Crownhill family centre, and I am sure that there will be a very warm welcome for the statement. But may I ask him—I scarcely need to ask him, I think—to involve families in the external reference group?

Des Browne: I thank my hon. Friend, who has a long track record of interest in and support for families of service people and, indeed, for service people, many of whom live in her constituency. The answer to her question is simply yes.

Philip Hollobone: Lack of access to NHS dentists is an important point for servicemen, servicewomen and their families and the Secretary of State has rightly announced that he is seeking to improve the situation. Given that the number of NHS dentists—for whatever reason—is falling and that we do not have enough service dentists, what practical steps will the Secretary of State take to improve the access for servicemen and women and their families?

Des Browne: Practically, what we intend to do, where we have existing facilities—consulting rooms for dentists—is to work with the health service to arrange for NHS dentists to come in and use our facilities, when they otherwise would not be used, in order to offer treatment to service people and/or their families; and to use mobile dental facilities where we cannot do that to make up the difference. In order to work out the practicalities of that, we will pilot it first in two places, and then once we have worked out the parameters and what we need to do to make it work, we will extend it across the country.

Eric Joyce: My right hon. Friend's comments on education today are an explicit recognition that many people join the armed services with a pretty patchy record in education, but once they are there, they discover a prodigious capacity to learn. Will he assure the House that his Department will make a careful and concerted effort to liaise with institutions of further and higher education to ensure that leaving servicemen get the very best from his announcement today?

Des Browne: With the Department for Children, Schools and Families, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families and the devolved Administrations, we will of course ensure that our people know how they can access further or higher education where those courses are available. But I say this to my hon. Friend, and I am sure he knows that it is true: I have not known of an educational establishment that would not be very pleased to have people who have come out of the services because of what they bring—not just what they come to the institutions to achieve, but what they bring by their presence in terms of discipline and all the other aspects of service life, which we are most proud of and which they inculcate into others around them.

Robert Smith: I very much welcome the bringing together of Departments to show this country's appreciation of the service that our personnel give and the sacrifice that they make for the country. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned earlier that veterans do not want to be seen to jump queues, and he has recognised that veterans are very stoical, so what efforts will be made to get out to veterans their entitlements under these new schemes, and what should they now be asking for of Government Departments that was not available before?

Des Browne: Part of our undertaking in the plain language of this document is to produce simple guides in plain language and to distribute them by all means of communications through the organisations that we have been working with and by other methods of communication, which are well known, to ensure that people know what they are entitled to.

David Kidney: I thank the Ministry of Defence for the additions it has made to its own services for armed forces members, their families and veterans. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces on his patient and skilful negotiations with other Government Departments that have made additions to their services. In terms of joined-up government, I am sure that my right hon. Friend learned a very painful lesson about how difficult that is in practical terms. What commitment has he obtained from other sponsoring Departments that the front-line staff in the delivering organisations, such as health trusts and councils, will be aware of the obligations that their organisations will now be under towards these people?

Des Browne: I welcome my hon. Friend's question and I am content to add my own compliments to his compliments to my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces, and to the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, my hon. Friend the Member for Halton (Derek Twigg) and many others, including unnamed officials who will continue to be unnamed, who have worked very hard. This document is a good example of government at its best, working together. That requires quite a lot of work, from other Departments as well as from our own Department, but it is a good piece of work.
	The communications exercise will be required to ensure not only that those who are entitled to services of this nature know that they are entitled to them, but that those who should deliver them know that they are dealing with people who qualify for them and will ensure that that is done.

Quentin Davies: Since my right hon. Friend has had his job, he has made a series of decisions substantially enhancing successively the pay, the conditions and the equipment available to our fighting services. Our forces will be deeply grateful to him for that and the whole country should be deeply grateful to him for that.
	In comparing the lump sum under the compensation scheme that my right hon. Friend has set out this afternoon with damages in the civil courts, am I right in thinking that, in order to make a fair comparison, one should add to that lump sum the present value of the war pension or disability pension that the beneficiary will be receiving, so as to get an equivalent figure?

Des Browne: My hon. Friend, in the work that he did on the recognition study that he carried out so effectively and efficiently—indeed, he distinguished himself by delivering it on time to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister—has made a significant contribution in a very short period to the objective that we all share that, as a nation, we should recognise what our armed forces and those who support them do in the service of the country. So I pay tribute to him and reciprocate his words. I am very grateful to him for the warm words that he has used in the House about my contribution, although many people deserve congratulations on and credit for what we have achieved over the past couple of years.
	My hon. Friend is quite right to say that there is a predilection to compare apples with pears in relation to the amounts paid out by the no-fault compensation scheme and the awards in the civil courts. Frankly, I gave up trying to explain the difference, because no one seemed to be listening, but we might begin to win that battle now that we have figures that aggregate the guaranteed income payment and the lump sum into a proportionate amount, which I believe that people will consider appropriate compensation.

Lindsay Hoyle: I welcome the statement, because it gives an absolute commitment on compensation and education, but does my right hon. Friend recognise that we will be judged on whether we ensure that we have houses fit for heroes when they leave the forces? So will he work very hard with housing associations and local government to deliver that, because they must recognise that provision is needed to ensure that those people have quality homes when they leave the services?

Des Browne: The point that my hon. Friend makes is very important to service people. Indeed, this morning, I spoke to some service people who, despite the stage that they were at in their careers, were anticipating the possibility that they might at some time get on to what they described as the housing ladder by owning their own house. I am determined that we will make strides in that regard. The provisions in the document help us substantially along the way, but those who read it carefully will see that that work is only just beginning. I still have other ideas, which I will announce to the House in due course, once I have worked them through.

Joan Walley: I give my wholehearted support to the statement today, and I thank my right hon. Friend for the courtesy that he has shown to servicemen and women in north Staffordshire. It is important that all armed forces families are aware of what they will be entitled to subsequently. I wonder whether the armed forces parliamentary scheme and MPs who have taken part in it can have a role in helping to increase awareness about the new opportunities that armed forces personnel will now have.

Des Browne: I thank my hon. Friend for her remarks and, from my own experience of her advocacy on behalf of families and service people, I know of her work to support her constituents. I pay tribute to her for that. Frankly, all MPs have a responsibility, whether they are in the armed forces parliamentary scheme or not, to disseminate this information. If my Department can do anything to assist MPs of any party to disseminate it to the total population of about 10 million people in this country who could be affected by these provisions, we will do so.

Andrew MacKinlay: Will the Secretary of State revisit the question of requiring local authorities by statute to allocate a small proportion of their housing stock for nomination to service leavers? It is unfair to some local authorities that have a disproportionate burden and meet it that others simply are not playing their patriotic part. It would be much better if each local authority had to make a small allocation of its housing stock available to service leavers.

Des Browne: I have never heard that suggestion made to me before.

Andrew MacKinlay: I have done so before in the House, and you said that you would look at it.

Des Browne: I will need to check  Hansard. I regret it if I have forgotten that I gave that undertaking, but the document contains a specific provision in relation to the housing allocation that we are in the process of delivering in England. We have complementary undertakings from the Administrations in Scotland and Wales to follow our decisions on the allocations policy in England. I believe that that is entirely consistent with what the armed forces have asked us to do, but I will just have to give my hon. Friend another commitment to go away and look at his suggestion.

Adrian Bailey: I join other hon. Members in welcoming the statement, which reinforces the status of the armed forces, addresses the injustices that they have suffered in the past and presents opportunities for those in the armed forces. What assessment has my right hon. Friend made of the possible impact of the package on recruiting able young people to the armed forces in the future?

Des Browne: My hon. Friend knows that we regularly survey the armed forces and beyond them to establish their motivations in relation to either retention or their desire to leave the forces. We have identified that in the issues addressed in the document and in the steps that we have taken over the past six months—for example, improved commitment bonuses, the tax-free operational allowance, the whole host of things that we have done in personnel investment in Headley Court, child care vouchers, council tax relief and the freepost issues in which we are in partnership with the Royal Mail. We have comprehensively addressed the list of issues that motivate our people. At the end of the day, of course, for all sorts of reasons, people come and go in all sorts of jobs, including jobs in the House, and we should encourage our people to do so and ease their path to prepare them for future careers. We will do that by the steps that we have announced in the document as well.

Policing Green Paper

Jacqui Smith: With permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the Government's policing Green Paper, which will help the police to continue to cut crime, drive up confidence and deliver for the public. Copies of the paper have been placed in the Vote Office.
	Today's Green Paper is built on foundations of success. The crime figures published this morning show that, in the past year, vehicle crime is down 14 per cent.; criminal damage is down 13 per cent.; violence against the person is down 8 per cent.; robbery is down 16 per cent.; and burglary is down 4 per cent. Since 1995, the number of violent incidents recorded in the British crime survey has fallen by half, representing around 750,000 fewer victims. We have met our target, set in 2004, to reduce crime by 15 per cent. Indeed, we have exceeded it; crime over that period fell by 18 per cent., and the chances of being a victim of crime are now at their lowest since 1981.
	This success is a tribute to the police service of this country—the men and women, warranted officers, police community support officers and staff across the growing police family, to whose bravery and dedication we owe so much. Whether working in one of over 3,600 neighbourhood policing teams, forming the backbone of emergency response policing, tackling the threat of terrorism or working in specialist victim support roles, our police service is the envy of the world.
	We stand today at a crossroads for the future of policing: over a decade of record investment; a bigger and more flexible work force; and now neighbourhood policing everywhere in England and Wales, alongside new technologies and improved systems. But the service also faces unprecedented challenges. From new forms of criminal activity and terrorism to new ways of working in partnership locally, the service's scope has never been so broad and public expectations have never been so high. Both Sir Ronnie Flanagan and Louise Casey, in their separate but linked reviews of policing and crime, have emphasised how important it is that the public can feel that they are able to influence policing priorities and that people know what they can expect from their police locally.
	The public want a new deal with their police service, and I know that the service wants to deliver to the highest standards for the public everywhere. The public are the best weapon in the fight against crime, but they need to be clear about what they can expect from the police. They want to see transparent, reliable and responsive policing. That will drive greater public confidence. Today I, along with the leaders of the service, accept the challenge of driving up public confidence.
	To deliver on that ambition, the Green Paper will set out nationally agreed rights to be in place in every police force by the end of the year. Those rights will form the new policing pledge, with both national and local elements, that clearly expresses what we can each expect from our police service and that ensures that the public's voice is heard during the setting of police priorities.
	The police are committing to minimum service standards everywhere. That means, for example, that as well as performing excellently in getting to emergencies when we need them to, the police will now offer appointments for non-urgent calls at a time convenient to the individual concerned and within 48 hours. In addition, we will legislate to strengthen the democratic link with the public by introducing local, directly elected crime and policing representatives. They will form the majority on police authorities, and will be responsible for ensuring that the police are tackling the priorities that concern us most, including by chairing their local crime and disorder reduction partnerships. Local information, with crime maps everywhere by the end of the year, will further empower the public.
	To give the police the tools to do the job and the time to spend on the front line, we will invest a further £25 million over the next two years to put more mobile data devices in the hands of front-line officers. By March 2010, the additional £75 million that the Government will have invested in those forms of police information technology will have meant an extra 30,000 mobile devices.
	Furthermore, we will implement across England and Wales the current pilots on cutting the bureaucracy around crime recording and on scrapping the stop and account form. Jan Berry, the former chairman of the Police Federation, will take on the work that Sir Ronnie Flanagan has begun by becoming a new independent champion for the ongoing reduction of police bureaucracy. She will be a powerful voice for the concerns of front-line officers. However, today I want to go further. I have decided that the time is now right to strip away all but one top-down target for police forces, to deliver improved levels of public confidence that crime is being tackled. That is a direct response to calls from chief officers for the space and freedom to focus on tackling crime. It is a significant mark of my trust in them.
	With stronger and more accountable police authorities, a robust and independent inspectorate and the momentum that the policing pledge gives us being delivered by the end of the year, today's Green Paper is the next stage of police reform. It is our response to the views expressed by front-line officers and staff up and down the country and by the communities that they serve. It represents a new deal, and will mean greater freedom for the police, matched by greater power for the public. I commend this statement to the House.

Dominic Grieve: First of all, I thank the Home Secretary for advance sight of her statement.
	Given the now daily tragedies on our streets, the public have long been waiting for sensible action from the Government on policing. I am afraid that it is not success in crime reduction that brings the Home Secretary to the Dispatch Box today, but massive public disquiet. We know what the problem is. Recorded violent crime has virtually doubled in 10 years. Police numbers are up by 10 per cent., and detection rates for violent offences are down by a quarter. We know why there is a problem; after all, we have had five Labour reviews of policing. Does the Home Secretary accept Sir Ronnie Flanagan's surgical dissection of serial ministerial failures which revealed "perverse incentives", a "raft" of targets and officers "straitjacketed by process"? We also know what is needed to free up the police: less red tape, fewer targets and greater local accountability of police to the communities that they serve.
	The Green Paper offers some constructive ideas, but I have to say that virtually all of them originate from this side of the House. Take the Conservative crime mapping proposals; they were announced in April and are already being implemented by a Conservative Mayor of London—months later, they have been pinched by the Home Secretary for her policing pledge. Take her piloting of the abolition of the stop and account form. That is a greatly watered-down version of the nationwide overhaul that we proposed in February to free up nearly 1 million police hours to get officers back on the street. Why not scrap them altogether, as we propose? There is also the promise to review the onerous bureaucratic burden that the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 places on the most basic investigations. That is a straight lift from Conservative party policy.
	I also note that the Home Secretary has said that she wants to strip away all but one top-down target for the police. That, however, is not how it is stated in the Green Paper itself. Will she guarantee that these targets will not be reintroduced in some new form? There is also a string of rehashed, reheated and half-baked announcements. Neighbourhood policing teams, for example, were announced three years ago and again six months ago—why have they been announced again today? Perhaps she would like to tell the House. As far as I can recollect, monthly victim progress reports were announced in 2005, but they have been reheated today for media consumption, so presumably they were never implemented. There is also a series of police response targets. I ask the Home Secretary to identify one of them that is new.
	In fairness, the policing pledge is explicit about its total lack of ambition; that is highlighted in bold on page 29, which says that
	"many forces already have these standards in place."
	The Green Paper dismisses a more radical approach to slashing forms as futile, and the Minister for Security, Counter-Terrorism, Crime and Policing can still not name a single one of the alleged 9,000 forms that he previously claimed had been removed. When will the Government learn that perpetual repackaging is no substitute for real delivery?
	Then there are the typically ill-thought-through eye-catching gestures that have little bearing on reality. How will the Home Secretary implement the utterly implausible guarantee that 80 per cent. of police time will be spent on patrol, when the proportion is currently only 14 per cent? Is that not what she really means and is there not an obfuscation in the Green Paper? Who does the Home Secretary think she is kidding in announcing the appointment of a police bureaucracy champion? I am delighted to hear of Jan Berry's appointment, but I gently point out to the Home Secretary that the previous post of national bureaucracy adviser has been kept vacant by the Government for two whole years. The half-hearted proposal for a crime representative on police authorities is a pale imitation of the Conservative commitment to directly elected local police commissioners.
	The truth is that this exhausted Government can offer neither the inspiration nor the perspiration to deliver the serious and sustained reform that the police so badly need. In the meantime, there is a gun crime every hour, there are five fatal stabbings every week, and we still do not have any proper Government information on violence against under-16-year-olds, although the information has been demanded by Members on both sides of the House for years.
	In conclusion, does the Home Secretary agree that the 22,151 serious offences involving knives, for which we for the first time have a figure, is a pretty damning indictment of a Government who seem consistently more interested in chasing headlines than chasing the perpetrators of crime?

Jacqui Smith: How very disappointing it was that the hon. and learned Gentleman could not find it in himself to congratulate the police and their partners on the very considerable reductions in crime that we have seen today, and how unfortunate it is that he chooses to claim crime mapping as a Conservative idea—

David Ruffley: Of course it is.

Jacqui Smith: Actually, it is a police idea that is already being delivered in some parts of the country. It would be good if people sometimes gave credit where it was due, rather than trying to claim it for political parties.
	I can give the shadow Home Secretary a guarantee that there will be one target set nationally, as we make clear in the Green Paper. The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Ruffley) claimed earlier this year that neighbourhood policing teams had somehow not been delivered. In fact, thanks to the hard work of police forces across the country and to the £1 billion of Government investment, there is now a neighbourhood policing team in every neighbourhood in the country. That has resulted in a radical transformation in policing, and today's Green Paper will enable us to take that reform to the next stage by making clear in the pledge the quality of service that people will be able to expect everywhere in England and Wales for the first time ever.
	The hon. and learned Gentleman asked which elements of the pledge were new. It is new that 80 per cent. of the neighbourhood policing teams' time on duty will be spent on the patch. It is also new that they will reply to calls and e-mail inquiries within 24 hours. It is new that there will be a minimum standard to ensure that the police respond to emergencies in 15 minutes or less, that they respond to other non-emergency but nevertheless priority or vulnerable cases within 60 minutes, that they respond to other non-emergency calls with a bookable appointment within 48 hours, and that they deliver monthly public meetings for neighbourhood policing teams and the provision of crime information and crime maps. That is a serious and clear set of standards that people can expect to be delivered everywhere, and that the police will be committed to providing.
	The hon. and learned Gentleman returned to the issue of the 9,000 forms. He knows, because I have written to his predecessor and to the shadow policing Minister about this, that we asked the now chief constable of Essex police, Roger Baker, to undertake that task. He has given his commitment that 9,000 forms were done away with, but the suggestion that we should go back and ask people to give the name of every single form in order to prove that we have cut bureaucracy just shows the misunderstanding among Conservative Members about how we should do this.
	The shadow Home Secretary's response today has been, at best, churlish in its failure to recognise the success on which this work is based. Either he reverts to claiming the credit for proposals that the police service is driving forward, or he calls important initiatives "gimmicks". I do not believe—as he has previously claimed—that knife arches, search wands, antisocial behaviour orders and the seizing of drug dealers' assets on arrest are gimmicks. I believe that they are serious attempts by the Government and their partners in the police service to cut crime, to respond to public concerns and to deliver a police service of which this country and the world can be even more proud. I hope that we will gain the hon. and learned Gentleman's support for that.

Keith Vaz: I congratulate the Home Secretary, not only on the reduction in the crime figures but on this bold and imaginative Green Paper. She has obviously been listening in on the sittings of the Home Affairs Select Committee while we have been considering policing. These are our ideas, not the Conservatives' ideas. The fact is that good practice already exists in many parts of the country. We have seen the Staffordshire example of reducing bureaucracy, and what is being done in Moss Side to tackle gun and gang crime. Will my right hon. Friend give a pledge that she will roll out these programmes immediately, rather than waiting for any further reviews? If they constitute good practice, let us have them operating in all 42 areas. I also congratulate her on the appointment of Jan Berry, but I ask her to ensure that Jan Berry is paid in full and on time, because she knows what the consequences will be if that does not happen.

Jacqui Smith: The Home Affairs Select Committee possibly does deserve some credit—[Hon. Members: "Possibly?"] Okay, I am sorry. I apologise. Unlike Conservative Members, I will not be churlish. The Home Affairs Select Committee does deserve credit, because its members have been out and about listening to what police officers and those in our communities have actually said. That is why it is putting forward those ideas. I can give my right hon. Friend the assurance that we will pilot only for as long as we need to in order to be completely confident of not whether but how we should roll out the initiatives nationally. As I said earlier, I am pleased that someone with a record of standing up for front-line police officers will now be working with us to free up those officers to do the job that they came into the service to do.

Christopher Huhne: I would certainly like to join the Home Secretary in praising the police and add my congratulations to them on the work that they do, and on putting their lives on the line day after day to try to make our communities safe. There was a note of self-congratulation in what the Home Secretary said, but I wonder whether she is aware that crime has been falling in every single western European country except Belgium since the 1990s. Would she consider benchmarking our performance against those of other countries, possibly excluding Belgium?
	Does the Home Secretary have any comment on the puzzle—which I am sure must have detained her—of the difference between the official figures showing a fall in crime and the continued rise in the public fear of crime? Does she feel that this is an opportunity quickly, rather than slowly, to put the crime figures under an independent agency such as the Office for National Statistics, as the Government have already done in other areas? If so, when might that happen?
	On policing and crime, there is general agreement in principle that there should be an emphasis on what works. However, in the past week, the Government have come up with a half-baked scheme for offender hospital visits, which has already been tried and tested in the United States, and which failed, and the Conservatives have been advocating imprisoning all knife carriers even though the evidence shows that sentence severity has a negligible effect on criminality. Surely the Home Secretary must agree that the time has come for a national crime reduction agency—a beefed-up National Policing Improvement Agency—that would act like the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence in the health service and attempt to establish real consensus between the parties on what works. Nothing would give the police greater support in their desire to see professionalism triumph than an end to the political bickering that we have seen here today.
	We also warmly welcome the emphasis on neighbourhood policing, on local crime maps, and on local accountability. This is surely the way to improve on the figure of 53 per cent. of people who say that the police are doing a good or excellent job. That figure obviously leaves some room for improvement.
	The concerns about the proposals for crime and policing representatives were not allayed by reading the details in the Green Paper. As I understand it, there would be just one representative for each council in a crime and disorder reduction partnership, directly elected, presumably by the first-past-the-post system. That would be the first such proposal that the Government had made since 1997. All the other new representatives have been elected by proportional systems. Let us take the example of my own police authority in Hampshire in the south of England, which, under the proposed system, would have two Liberal Democrats, 12 Conservatives and no Labour members whatever. Does the Home Secretary really intend to disfranchise 25 per cent. of the voters in the south of England who happen to be Labour, merely because she is going to consider only a first-past-the-post system? We know from the way in which the system works that this would also cut out ethnic minorities and women. Is that what the Home Secretary wants?

Chris Bryant: Don't listen to a word of that.

Jacqui Smith: I shall not take my hon. Friend's advice, because a few of the comments made by the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Chris Huhne) were quite sensible. In particular, he rightly emphasised the importance of ensuring that we not only cut crime, but raise confidence in our ability to do so. That is why setting a target that measures local people's confidence in the ability of the police and their partners to cut crime and deal with the issues that matter locally is the appropriate way to ensure that we cut crime and clearly communicate the actions being taken—not just by the police, but more widely across the criminal justice system—to drive up confidence.
	I do not accept the hon. Gentlemen's suggestion that the crime stats are not independent, but I hope that he has noted that we now issue crime stats using the new provisions for which we have legislated. The independence of the statisticians in the Home Office is now much clearer, and there is an overview from national statisticians, too. I do not accept his view that the way to tackle knife crime is to set up a new quango. We have been very clear that knife crime is a serious problem, but more so in certain areas than in others, and that we therefore need a national knife crime programme. The programme is to be led by a senior police officer, Deputy Assistant Commissioner Alf Hitchcock, and it will focus on those issues. We need to ensure increased use of stop and search, and to ensure that links are made with our schools. This week, we made it clear in the youth crime action plan that tackling knife crime starts with ensuring that parents live up to their responsibilities, too. We have to make sure that punishment is tough, and involves custody whenever a knife has been used. Where a community sentence is given, the sentence should bring home, particularly to young people, the consequences of even just carrying a knife. That is the right way to address the problem.
	The hon. Gentleman will not tempt me down the route of supporting his proposal for a new system of proportional representation; that may disappoint some people on the Labour Benches— [Interruption.]—and please others. Let me be quite clear: the intention behind the proposals is not to safeguard one political party or another, but to make sure that local people have a direct voice on police authorities. I take seriously his point about ensuring that we maintain diversity, as regards gender and people from minority ethnic communities, on police authorities. That is one of the reasons why, in our proposals, we maintain the provision for independent members of police authorities, who make a very important contribution.

David Blunkett: May I congratulate the Home Secretary on her statement, and on the measures to empower, and ensure greater accountability for, local people, as regards the policing service? I very much welcome the further drop in crime announced today, and the appointment of Jan Berry, but will my right hon. Friend reflect on the fact that every time we decentralise decision making, in relation to targets and the collection of stats, we end up with a contradiction? Was it not the Association of Chief Police Officers that, just over seven years ago, changed the recording of crime, so that the number of crimes and events that had to be recorded rose dramatically? Since the original measures doing away with centrally demanded forms and statistics were put in place, the number of forms at local level has risen dramatically. With the help of the excellent president of ACPO, Ken Jones, will my right hon. Friend ensure that Jan Berry has the support and resources needed to ensure, at grass-roots level, that responsibility is taken with regard to doing away with unnecessary form-filling and collection, and with regard to implementing powers, legislation and enforcement, as that is often not present on the ground?

Jacqui Smith: Yes, and as we reflect on the reform and the success that is the basis for the further steps announced today, let me say that my right hon. Friend deserves considerable credit for the changes that he made to policing when he was in my role, not least as regards the development of the work force and the strong emphasis on standards, which has led to some of the results that we see today. He makes a very important point about where bureaucracy and form-filling emanate from. He is exactly right that the job for all of us, and for Jan Berry, is to continue to drive forward the reduction in bureaucracy, whether it comes from national Government, police forces or other partners, and to ensure that there is a sensible approach to driving out bureaucracy and implementing future initiatives. An important role for Jan Berry and her team is to make sure that we implement any future changes, both nationally and locally, in a way that minimises burdens and maximises the effectiveness of the police.

Michael Howard: May I congratulate the Home Secretary—I pause for a moment to allow those words to sink in—on her acceptance of recommendation 24 of the Flanagan report on the stop and account form? Is she aware that I have questioned the need for that form ever since—indeed, since even before—it was introduced in November 2004? Will she give the House an estimate of the number of police hours that would have been saved, the number of knives that might have been discovered, and the number of lives that might indeed have been saved, if that unnecessary and ridiculous piece of bureaucracy had never been introduced?

Jacqui Smith: I congratulate the right hon. and learned Gentleman on his prescience in relation to the stop and account form. Unfortunately, I cannot congratulate him on his record in bringing down crime when he was Home Secretary, but I do not want to be churlish. As I think he is aware, the increased monitoring, particularly of stop and account, understandably emanated from concerns—not least those that came out of the Macpherson inquiry into Stephen Lawrence's death—about whether, and how, it was possible to ensure proportionality in the way in which the police dealt with people, whatever their background. That was an understandable reason for the development of that form, but I think—and others agree—that it now does not serve that purpose, and it is right that it be removed.

Emily Thornberry: Ben Kinsella was a constituent of mine, and I agree with his family that the only way to stop kids carrying knives is to ensure that they know that they will be stopped, searched and punished for carrying them. I remember the sus laws well, but nevertheless I fully support the random use of stop and search on young people in Islington, because local statistics show that no group is being disproportionately targeted in Islington. Will we build on best practice, and can we have more police officers randomly to stop and search our teenagers, to make them safer?

Jacqui Smith: My hon. Friend makes a very strong point. She and I know of the dignity with which the Kinsella family have responded to a terrible tragedy, and that they are making very constructive suggestions. My hon. Friend is right, and in London we have had considerable success with Operation Blunt 2, which uses Government investment in search arches and wands to step up stop and search operations, particularly in areas where there is considerable concern about knife crime. People have been stopped, knives have been recovered, and those concerned will face the consequences of carrying knives. I want that sort of activity to continue in my hon. Friend's constituency, but I want it to happen not just in London. Through the national knife programme, I want it to be spread to other areas of the country where there are concerns about knife crime.

Douglas Hogg: Will the right hon. Lady investigate the circumstances in which serving police officers can take second jobs? May I draw her attention to a matter about which I have just written to her? She will not yet have got the letter. I represented a man in the criminal courts who was an officer in the Metropolitan police. He agreed with his superior that he would work but two days a week. For the rest of the time, he ran a very large estate agency, handling hundreds of thousands of pounds of cash. That is, by any standards, undesirable. He was convicted of fraud. First, is it right in principle that a police officer should work but two days a week? Secondly, if it is right that he should have another job, should it be that kind of job, in which he would inevitably be exposed to huge temptation, and would handle very large sums of money?

Jacqui Smith: I am sure that the right hon. and learned Gentleman does not expect me to comment on an individual case. I will, of course, respond to his letter, but it ill behoves Members of this House to comment on others having more than one job.

Celia Barlow: I congratulate the Home Secretary on both the Green Paper and the excellent statistics. The national statistics have been exceeded by those in Hove and Port Slade, where in the year until the end of June crime as a whole was down by 21.4 per cent. and violent crime down by 21.9 per cent. That is partly to do with our wonderful neighbourhood police team, with whose youth disorder operation I had the pleasure of touring my constituency a couple of weeks ago. We visited areas where large numbers of youths gather to speak to them and to see what was going on. That team's successful approach involves sending letters to parents, which could form part of the initiatives that the Home Secretary aims to pursue. Does she plan to do that, and will she visit that team?

Jacqui Smith: I join my hon. Friend in congratulating the youth disorder team that she has mentioned on the innovative way in which it is tackling youth crime in her constituency. I am sure that she noted the youth crime action plan on Tuesday, which seeks to build on such good practice. For example, we have proposed the greater use of, as she has identified, assertive youth work, which involves teams going out on the streets. Such teams sometimes involve people who were previously involved in gangs or serious violence, and they help young people whom they meet on the streets to move away from crime and violent crime. My hon. Friend is right that parents play an important role in preventing children and young people from turning to crime. The idea that parents should be told when children are picked up is important, and it is already happening in several places. We propose to take that approach forward through the youth crime action plan.

Peter Bone: I want to congratulate the Home Secretary on her wise words about how useless the stop and account form is, but the statement does not make the position clear. Does she believe that the form is useless? If so, why is it not being scrapped today, rather than at some time in the future?

Jacqui Smith: I do not believe that the form is useless, but I accept Sir Ronnie Flanagan's recommendation that it should be scrapped, which is what we are working to achieve.

Chris Bryant: It is clear that several national newspapers pay police officers for information about impending arrests and ongoing investigations. That is clearly bribery and corruption, and it occurs regularly throughout the United Kingdom. I have asked several Home Secretaries about that practice—they always say that they will put a stop to it by clarifying the law on suborning a police officer, but so far none of them has done so. Is my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary who will?

Jacqui Smith: I am not sure whether I can quite give my hon. Friend that commitment today. We will, of course, have a policing and crime reduction Bill in the next Session, and perhaps he would like to raise that issue at that time, although I must say that it is not a priority in our policing plans today.

Hywel Williams: The Home Secretary has rightly emphasised the virtue of local accountability. What plans does she have to develop the accountability of the police force in Wales to the National Assembly, which now provides a substantial and increasing proportion of the budget?

Jacqui Smith: No case has been made that devolving responsibility for policing to the Assembly would lead to a better service for Welsh people, which is what we all aim to achieve.

Adrian Bailey: I welcome the Green Paper and join the Home Secretary in praising the police. In particular, I want to praise West Midlands police and its supporting agencies in my local authority of Sandwell, where there has been a remarkable 34 per cent. drop in crime, which is reflected in the drop in the crime-related case load at my surgeries. During the deliberations, consultations and considerations in the Green Paper process, will she address the issue of business crime, which is the one area that still seems to cause major problems?

Jacqui Smith: My hon. Friend makes an important point. Local police and their partners deserve congratulation in the west midlands. He raises the important issue of business crime, which we take seriously. Indeed, the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Mr. Coaker), met the British Chambers of Commerce yesterday to discuss it.

Alistair Burt: I thank the right hon. Lady for responding on the issue of targets, which will help forces in rural areas, such as my area in Bedfordshire, respond to rural crime in the way they want rather than focus on urban issues. She also mentioned a series of other measures, which sounded like a compilation from the briefings and policy points that I have received from Opposition Front Benchers over the past two years.
	I want to raise a practical problem on mapping about which I have written to the Home Secretary. When Bedfordshire police provided the details about incidents around Travellers' sites to the planning committee of Bedford borough council in connection with a planning matter, the council felt that it could not publish the information, because that would contravene legislation on race relations and discrimination. Is the Home Secretary confident that her plans for mapping will be consistent with other legislation, because that issue needs to be sorted quickly, otherwise appropriate information will not be in the public domain?

Jacqui Smith: We will ensure that we respond to the hon. Gentleman's specific point. I am confident that we can find a way to deliver the primary objective, which is allowing local people to see the detail of the crime that impacts on their communities. That is my No. 1 priority, and I have no doubt that we can find a way through any legal hurdles that might be put in our way.

Albert Owen: I welcome the Green Paper and congratulate the Home Secretary on listening to Labour Members and the police by cutting bureaucracy and freeing up the police to do their work on the streets. On strengthening the democratic link with the public, it is important that members of the police authority are accountable. Will she assure me that there will be more powers to hold chief constables and senior police officers to account, so they do not make controversial remarks that divert attention from the police's real job of catching criminals?

Jacqui Smith: There is an important responsibility on the new, stronger police authorities, which, incidentally, will be inspected from next year, to ensure that they hold to account, and play a role in the performance review of, chief officers in the way my hon. Friend outlines.

Philip Hollobone: I invite the Home Secretary to join me on a visit to Kettering police station, where she will have the opportunity not only to thank the police for their endeavours but to see on the police station notice board the pictures, names and addresses of the 35 persistent and prolific offenders who cause the bulk of crime in and around Kettering. I am sure that the situation is the same all over the country: the police know who the criminals are; the police catch the criminals; the criminals are sentenced; but the criminals do not spend enough time off the streets in prison. Is there anything in the Green Paper that will help the police to tackle persistent and prolific offenders?

Jacqui Smith: If those persistent offenders have committed some of the most serious, violent crimes, they will on average spend longer in prison now than they would have done previously. Some of them will, of course, be subject to the kind of indefinite sentences opposed by Opposition Members. Nevertheless, the hon. Gentleman has made the important point about the need to focus on persistent offenders, which is why the persistent offender programme continues to proceed with the investment and commitment that the Government have put into it.

Sally Keeble: I welcome my right hon. Friend's proposals. Will she say whether she has given any thought to the role of police community support officers, who are an important addition to the policing community? Some of my constituents would like to see them given stronger powers, in particular the power of arrest.

Jacqui Smith: The Green Paper praises and considers the important role played by PCSOs. It publishes the results of a review of PCSOs, which was carried out by the Association of Chief Police Officers. It recommends further standardisation on uniforms, makes it clear that the minimum age should be 18 and invites further comments on the extent to which there should be further standardisation of powers.

Madeleine Moon: Bridgend basic command unit, which covers my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies), has had remarkable results in many respects. Neighbourhood policing teams are running effectively, packed meetings are held regularly, burglary is down by 17 per cent., theft of cars is down by 12 per cent. and theft from cars is down by 20 per cent. However, I am concerned that, in contrast with previous years when we had a 12 per cent. fall in crimes of violence against the person, we have now had a 12 per cent. rise in such crimes, equating to 188 additional offences across the constituency. The superintendent in my constituency tells me that in 2008 only 0.2 per cent. of offences involve harm by a knife. How do I reassure people about knife crime when the number of crimes of violence against the person is rising? How can we begin to tackle that issue?

Jacqui Smith: My hon. Friend is right. We need to provide more information about what is happening and about the nature of violent crime, which covers a wide gamut of crime, including that which happens within the family as well as between strangers—50 per cent. of which involves no actual injury to somebody else, notwithstanding the fact that it is a very serious form of crime. I am strongly of the view that the provision of more local information helps to reassure people and ensures that they then, through reporting to the police and being willing to act as witnesses, feel confident of being part of the solution to solving that crime.

BILL PRESENTED

Political Parties and Elections

Mr. Secretary Straw, supported by the Prime Minister, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Secretary Hazel Blears, Edward Miliband and Bridget Prentice, presented a Bill to make provision in connection with the Electoral Commission; and to make provision about political donations and expenditure and about elections: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Monday 21 July, and to be printed. Explanatory notes to be printed [Bill 141].

Freedom of Information

Harriet Harman: I beg to move,
	That the draft Freedom of Information (Parliament and National Assembly for Wales) Order 2008, which was laid before this House on 15th July, be approved.
	The House is familiar with the issues that have led to the Government bringing forward this statutory instrument. The question of the House authorities being obliged by law under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 to reveal our addresses and other security information has been raised in a number of debates that we have had in this House over the last couple of months; in comments made during the business statement; most importantly, in early-day motion 1620, tabled by the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) and signed by no fewer than 256 hon. Members; and, most recently, in the debate that we had on 3 July, in which I told the House of my intention to bring forward this order.
	We have all agreed that, to do our job properly, we have to be able to speak freely in this House, without fear or favour. We must be able to say what we believe to be true about controversial issues without feeling that to do so would put us or our families at risk. If the House authorities were to be obliged by law to publish our addresses and our travel plans, we would know that a controversial speech in this House might lead to harassment at home.
	This is not just about current threats but about the future. Threats could be made in respect of an individual Member at some time in the future, whether from a fixated individual or following the Member's involvement with a particular controversial issue, or threats could be made to all Members in circumstances posing new dangers that are as yet unforeseen, such as a terrorist threat focusing on Parliament. Once a Member's address is in the public domain, it cannot retrospectively be made private again without their moving home. This is also a question of the security of the public. The publication of our addresses would put at greater risk those who happened to live in the same block of flats as a number of hon. Members.
	I have had the opportunity of discussions with the Chair of the Joint Committee on Security, my right hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East and Wallsend (Mr. Brown), and with the parliamentary security co-ordinator. I thank them both for their important work and their advice to me as Leader of the House on this issue. The security co-ordinator's advice is that it would be a risk to put in the public domain our addresses or anything that would lead to identification of our addresses or our travel plans. That is his expert advice, but it is also clearly common sense and, I would say, the belief of all hon. Members.
	The statutory instrument restricts the scope of section 7(3) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. It amends the schedule 1 entry relating to both Houses, and to the National Assembly for Wales, to exclude four categories of information disclosure under the Act. First, it excludes from disclosure under the Act the residential addresses of any Member, by which I mean any address registered to an hon. Member, not just addresses in respect of which there has been an additional costs allowance claim. Secondly, it excludes from disclosure under the Act information about the regular or forthcoming travel arrangements of any Member in order to prevent the profiling of travel undertaken by any hon. Member.

Robert Smith: The explanatory notes say:
	"except as to the total amount of expenditure incurred on travel during any month".
	Will that be broken down by mode of travel—mileage, train or aircraft—as it is at the moment?

Harriet Harman: As the hon. Gentleman suggests, the information will be given monthly. It will not be excluded from the scope of the Act, and it will be given in the categories that he describes. The House will still be obliged to publish individual MPs' travel expenses on a monthly basis, but it will not be broken down any further than that, as further detail might risk the identification of travel patterns week by week, thereby prejudicing security.
	Thirdly, the order excludes from disclosure under the Act information that would enable the identification of any person who has delivered goods or provided services to a Member at any residence belonging to the Member; again, that is because it could lead to the identification of the address. Fourthly, it excludes from disclosure under the Act information relating to expenditure by a Member on security arrangements. We do not want a list that sets out who spends on security such as burglar alarms and thus, by a process of elimination, which Members do not have any security.

Michael Ancram: Presumably this applies only where a Member of Parliament has not in one way or another made his or her address public. During elections, we tend to put our addresses on the ballot papers. I assume that when that happens, even though we are not Members of Parliament at the time, the information is regarded as being in the public domain and these provisions would not apply to it.

Harriet Harman: The statutory instrument restricts the scope of the Act, which places an obligation on the House authorities to disclose information. It does not apply to anything that an hon. Member might want to do in the future or might have done in the past. It simply provides the rules that the House authorities will have to comply with in respect of what they do. They will not have to say to themselves, "Has this particular Member put his or her address in the public domain? Yes, they have, so I'll put his or her address up on the website." They will know that it is a category of information that comes within the scope of the restrictions and that they therefore do not disclose it.

Julian Lewis: I think that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) has put his finger on a key issue, which I hope to address if I am fortunate enough to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. However, I should like to press one point in any case. Just because once every four or five years we have to disclose one of our addresses on certain documents to do with elections does not mean that we should disclose them all, en masse, in an easily accessible way. When I enter one of my addresses—the one that I have sometimes disclosed at election times—and my name on to the Google search engine, not a single match comes up, but if we did not do what we are doing now everyone's addresses would be freely available at home and abroad.

Harriet Harman: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, and I congratulate him on the work that he has done that led to us introducing this statutory instrument. Although the public are strongly in favour of openness and freedom of information, and want to know about public money that is spent on our residences and travel, they also understand that there are security issues and that we should approach such matters with a measure of common sense.
	Should this House and the other place see fit to pass the order, it will not change the fact that the overwhelming majority of information held by the House of Commons and the House of Lords will remain subject to the Freedom of Information Act, and will be published. It is right that there should be openness about spending public money, so the House still plans to publish information on the expenses of every Member in the autumn. I commend this statutory instrument to the House.

Shailesh Vara: My party supports the statutory instrument, which affects not only Members in this House, but those in another place, as well as those in the Welsh Assembly. I join the Leader of the House in complimenting my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) for all the effort that he has put into ensuring that we have reached this stage to make this change to the Freedom of Information Act.
	It is important to recognise that this is a matter not of secrecy for secrecy's sake, but simply of striking a balance between greater openness and the need to ensure safety and security for both Members and their families. It is also to ensure, as the Leader of the House said, that Members can speak freely inside and outside the House, and that they can carry on with their duties without fear of harm to themselves or their families. It is worth noting that although we accept that we are public figures, that burden is not imposed on our families—they remain private citizens.
	We welcome not only the statutory instrument's proposals as regards home addresses, but, as the Leader of the House said, all the measures that apply to keeping confidential future travel and information held by those who deliver services and goods to Members. The measure is clearly a logical progression and will lessen the risk to those concerned. Of course, it will not guarantee security for those concerned, but we all agree that it goes some way to ensuring greater security for parliamentarians, Assembly Members and their families. I have nothing further to add, except to reiterate my party's support for the order.

Robert Smith: I, too, recognise that the order implements the will of the House, as expressed without opposition during debate on relevant motions. I always have reservations about allowing security to impact too much on our legislation, and allowing security advice to restrain what we do, but the measure seems to make sense. The hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Mr. Vara) made a point about family, and the Leader of the House referred to neighbours and the duty of care to others.
	The more robust the auditing system is, and the more robust the National Audit Office's inspection is, the less concern people will have that the freedom of information process is trying to hide something. I congratulate the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) on focusing on the issue. As we learnt yesterday, he is a wily individual—his ability to sell a second-hand washing machine for 18 free dinners suggests that he is quite an efficient negotiator.
	With the reassurance from the Leader of the House that the global travel figures will still be broken down by mode of travel—information that people are keen to know, which does not have a security implication—and that the order does not affect that process in any way, my party will not oppose the order.

Denis MacShane: I welcome this order. As someone who received a credible death threat, which was sorted out by the forcible deportation of the person in question by the South Yorkshire police, I was truly astonished when I read of the Information Commissioner's ruling that all of our private addresses should be published. I can think of no better definition of a burglar's charter because many of us do not live at our addresses at weekends or during the holidays. It was even more astonishing when two Law Lords, or two lord justices, upheld his suggestion.
	What happened calls into question the Freedom of Information Act. Those who want to know where we live can find out. Journalists from  The Mail on Sunday forcibly came into my late mother's home when she was suffering from a severe stroke to try to extract some tittle-tattle about me when I was a Minister. We cannot protect ourselves against that. If people really want to know our addresses, they can be found, and they are published at the time of an election.
	We need to consider the matter more widely, however, and I welcome the fact that this statutory instrument shows that the Freedom of Information Act is amendable. I regret that it has to be amended. If the Information Commissioner were competent—I cannot believe that he is about to be awarded an extra £40,000 next Monday, at a time of huge public pay restraint—we would not have had to take up the House's time with this legislation.
	Let us look at the Freedom of Information Act to see how it might be amended so that it can apply to other public bodies, particularly the BBC—it extracts a large amount of obligatory tax from my constituents, even though few of them watch it—to find out about the salaries and expenses of its employees. Let it also be amended to apply to other organs of high public importance. Frankly, the press is much more important than many Departments, in terms of its actual impact on people's lives. Let the Act be amended soon to include the organs of the media, so that all of their expenses, salaries, payments and other financial arrangements can be put into the public domain.
	I am a former president of the National Union of Journalists; freedom of information legislation is in my DNA. The Information Commissioner, however, is not up to the job and we need to extend the Freedom of Information Act to cover many other public bodies including the BBC and the wider media. I stop at that point, leaving other hon. Members to make their points.

Julian Lewis: I would like to begin by thanking the Leader of the House and all of her staff for the extremely positive way in which they have reacted to the concerns, initially expressed by me and then by hundreds of other right hon. and hon. Members, about the situation we were in danger of getting into. I say with the greatest sincerity that I only hope that the stance that she took did not contribute to the fact that her home has been invaded twice—by people who no doubt feel in the depths of their being that the cause they propose was justification for their actions. Nevertheless, such things are precisely what should not be allowed to happen. She has excelled in her office in the work that she has done and in the way in which she has spoken out in defence of Members' rights and interests on this matter.
	I would like to thank the 98 Members of my party, the 111 Members of the Labour party and the 31 Members of the Liberal Democrat party who supported early-day motion 1620. I would also like to thank the several Ministers who told me that they could not sign the EDM because of the posts that they held, but who nevertheless wrote to Mr. Speaker explaining why they supported the principle of the motion.
	I know that we are waiting for an important debate on intelligence and security, so I shall not detain the House for long. This, however, is a debate on a related subject. It is a debate about security, but on an issue where not very much intelligence has been shown by a certain number of people from whom we thought we could have expected it. I exclude, however, the Information Commissioner from that criticism. I say that because I had laboured under the mistaken impression that he wanted our individual addresses to be disclosed, but as he later pointed out to me, he had not ordered that. After an appeal, that requirement was added by the information appeal tribunal and upheld by the High Court in a subsequent hearing. The guilty men, as it were, were those two latter bodies. It was not the Information Commissioner. In fact, he proceeded to enter the lion's den and, at short notice, 50 to 60 hon. Members of all parties came to meet him and his team. I think that even he was quite shaken by the stories that they told him about their experiences when their constituency addresses had been exposed. Indeed, some honourable Ladies were in tears at that meeting and the Information Commissioner and his team were shaken by what they heard.

Peter Kilfoyle: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his work. I was one of those who attended the meeting with the Information Commissioner and, like him, I witnessed the genuine concerns that were expressed. Does he ever speculate on whether those venerable High Court judges who made the decision would publish their private addresses if the occasion demanded?

Julian Lewis: I have not only speculated on the matter but put it to the test. After one of the earlier debates on the subject, I took the liberty of sending the relevant  Hansard to each of the three judges, who had, in their wisdom, determined that our addresses should be published en masse. I asked whether I could have their home addresses for future correspondence. Every one politely but firmly declined.
	There is a postscript. One—the right honourable Sir Igor Judge—was subsequently appointed Lord Chief Justice and I asked, on what some might consider a bogus point of order, whether it was possible within the rules to send him our congratulations, and express how happy we were as a House that one silly mistake had not spoiled his promising professional career. I duly sent the  Hansard to the royal courts of justice, but I have not yet received a reply and I can only regret that, if I had gone to the trouble of finding his home address, I might have discovered whether he saw the joke.
	There is an incredible lack of self-awareness in the wider debate. I hope that the House will indulge me while I quote from a short letter, which was published in my local paper, the  Southern Daily Echo, on Monday 9 June. It is headed: "Why is MP secretive?" It reads:
	"Why has Julian Lewis, MP for New Forest, East, attacked the decision to disclose details of MPs' homes?
	He has access to our home details through the nation census and other government data. The freedom of information process was brought in by the government, so he should respect it."
	At the bottom of the letter, a little note states that not only the writer's address, but his name has been withheld.

David Taylor: I note the hon. Gentleman's early-day motion 1620 and I was not one of the 256 Members who signed it. Does not he think that he is going a little over the top? Although the correspondent to whom he referred requested anonymity for some reason, he has a point. People have a right to know that Members of Parliament live in their constituency. Like many Members, I am in the phone book and I welcome constituents who turn up at my address, if they wish to do that. The information on the ballot paper for a general election every four or five years can include a bogus address. Candidates—of all parties—can simply rent a flat in the constituency and visit it once a month from their real home 100 miles away. Why do not people have the right to know?

Julian Lewis: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman had many important things to do at the time, but if he had attended some of the earlier debates, he would have heard me address those points in detail. It is not fair to the House for me to go over them again now. Let me put it in a nutshell. First, anyone who wishes to disclose a home address and put it in the phone book can do so—it is a matter for him or her. However, if the decision had been implemented, 646 private home addresses would be made available to anybody—including any troublemaker at home or abroad—who wished to send something through the post to 646 unprotected mail boxes. If there is any sense in our having the expensive and complex screening arrangements at the House of Commons to ensure that nothing horrible, explosive or contaminated is sent through the post en masse to Members of Parliament, who are probably being targeted not individually but as a body, it is obvious madness to reveal the 646 home addresses. I could make many other points, but I shall leave it at that and refer the hon. Gentleman to my previous speeches on the subject.
	My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) typically put his finger on the heart of the problem when he referred to data that are published at election time. We have to include a home address on specific documents every time we stand for election. I have already said in an intervention that, just because we have to reveal some addresses occasionally, it should not be regarded as an excuse for revealing them all, en masse, all the time in a way that makes them accessible at home or abroad at the touch of a button. Nevertheless, that bogus argument—that the cat is already out of the bag—led the judges and the appeal tribunal wrongly to conclude that there was no point in refusing the request for addresses en masse.
	It is important to close that loophole and I would welcome a response from Government Front Benchers on that. I believe that the idea that people had to publish a private home address—even if it has not found its way on to the internet—at election time predated the time when one could put the name of one's party on the ballot paper. The requirement is archaic and an unnecessary infringement of individuals' rights. If people want to stand for public office, I do not understand why they must disclose their home address. The Information Commissioner has a wise ruling, which is that, in almost all circumstances, he would at most recommend disclosure of only the first three digits or letters of the person's postcode. The Government should take the opportunity—I am not sure whether the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 is the relevant vehicle—to close the loophole, because it was seized upon. Without that, we would not have to go to such lengths.
	I want to consider anonymous registration. In the past, it was possible to give a nom de plume if one felt that one was at risk and wished to be on the electoral register under another name. The rule has changed and someone who wishes to be on the electoral register anonymously must have the signature of a police chief constable, that of a director of the Security Service or that of a director of social services. We need to reconsider that to make it clear to chief constables that, when a Member of Parliament wants to be on that list, that is all that is necessary for anonymous registration.
	I will conclude, much to the satisfaction of my Whip, who has been making noises offstage. I hope that anybody present today who believes that I am wrong will divide the House. I do not think that it will happen, but I hope that it will because  The Sunday Telegraph, whose reporter was responsible for this mess in the first place, found plenty of space to attack me and suggest that my party opposed what I was doing. However, it found no space other than for two sentences of a letter that I wrote in reply to try to explain that the House had already resolved to take action, without a vote. I wish that there could be a vote so that even the idiot scribblers on  The Sunday Telegraph could understand that our action has nothing to do with expenses and everything to do with security.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Resolved,
	That the draft Freedom of Information (Parliament and National Assembly for Wales) Order 2008, which was laid before this House on 15th July, be approved.

Intelligence and Security Committee

Jacqui Smith: I beg to move,
	That this House has considered the matter of the Annual Report of the Intelligence and Security Committee for 2006-07, Cm 7299, and the Government response, Cm 7300.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I must inform the House that Mr. Speaker has selected amendment (a), in the name of the hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay), and amendment (b), in the name of the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), to the second motion.

Jacqui Smith: The protection and preservation of national security are the first and foremost responsibility of any Government, and the House will need no reminding of the grave threats that we currently face. In combating terrorists and other threats, we are extremely well served by our security and intelligence agencies, which do an outstanding job in difficult and often dangerous circumstances. I am sure that the House would wish to join me in thanking them for their unstinting efforts to preserve the security of the nation and its citizens.
	The agencies have vital roles in supporting the Government's national security policies, and the Government therefore has a duty to ensure that they have the resources necessary to do so. As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced in the House last October, spending dedicated to counter-terrorism and intelligence across government will rise to more than £3.5 billion by 2010-11—a clear indication of the Government's commitment to national security and their strong determination to counter threats from international terrorism.
	The activities of the agencies are governed by a body of legislation, and ministerial engagement in itself provides Executive oversight. Legislation also provides for judicial oversight of the agencies by commissioners who report annually to the Prime Minister on their work and whose reports are laid before Parliament. However, in addition to ministerial and judicial oversight, it is essential that Parliament and, through Parliament, the wider public can be assured that the security and intelligence agencies are fulfilling their lawful duties efficiently and effectively. That is the role of the Intelligence and Security Committee—the ISC.

Peter Kilfoyle: I think that I am the only Member in the House who sat on the Committee that, in the early 1990s, considered the Bill that set up the Intelligence and Security Committee. It struck me then that the Committee was a poodle of the Prime Minister of the day, and it remains a poodle of the Prime Minister of the day. If it is to be truly accountable to the House, should not its position be regularised in some way? Should not it be a Select Committee of the House, rather than a creature of the Prime Minister?

Jacqui Smith: As I will argue, the experience of the Committee's operations has in no way suggested that it is a poodle. Although I do not agree that my hon. Friend's argument is wholly correct, I am nevertheless going to identify where we can improve the Committee's transparency and accountability.
	I am pleased to have this opportunity to invite the House to consider the ISC's annual report for 2006-07 under the first of the motions in my name. In doing that, I want to place on record my thanks to the Committee for its valuable work, which its members undertake with commitment and distinction. They carry a heavy weight of responsibility, and they and other hon. Members should be in no doubt that the Government take the Committee's conclusions and recommendations very seriously.

Andrew MacKinlay: Will the Home Secretary explicitly address the issues raised on pages 1 and 5 of the Government's response? On page 1, the Committee complains that its work has been hampered—its words, not mine—by
	"government departments failing to keep the Committee formally informed of changes relevant to its work."
	On page 5, it says:
	"It is now over *** years since the Intelligence and Security Committee first requested access to the relevant information",
	but notes that the Government still declined to provide it. What sort of transparency is that? What confidence can we in the House of Commons have when the Government fail to answer even this hand-picked Committee when it makes representations to them? Will the Home Secretary address those two points, please?

Jacqui Smith: My hon. Friend will know that we made it clear in our response that where information should be provided to the Committee, all Departments have a responsibility to make sure that it is provided in a timely way. There have been only a small number of occasions—this relates to the second recommendation that he identified—on which the decision has been taken not to make certain information available to the Committee, and he refers to one of those.
	I do not propose to dwell at length on the recommendations, not least because, as we have heard, the Government have already published their response. Hon. Members will have seen that the Government welcome and widely endorse the Committee's views. Where the need for further action has been identified, this has been taken forward. The ISC notes, for example, that the increased funding for the agencies over the next three years is commensurate with the increased threats that the UK faces and the requirements of the agencies to counter them.
	However, the Committee also expresses concern that aspects of key intelligence and security work are suffering as a consequence of the focus on counter-terrorism priorities. I would like to take this opportunity to reassure the House that both the Government and the agencies remain very focused on the range of threats to the UK. Although the increase in agency funding was driven largely by the need to respond to the terrorist threat, we continue to resource capabilities to counter other threats effectively. Moreover, capabilities developed to counter terrorism can often be deployed against other targets, and technological advances have led to newer, smarter and more flexible ways of working, which have enhanced our ability to respond to these or any other sudden, unexpected threats.

Dominic Grieve: Obviously, the amount of detail in the report is, of necessity, limited. However, there is at least some indication that anxiety has been expressed about the possibility that the proper emphasis on the counter-terrorism work that is taking place might be undermining some of the work that needs to be done on counter-espionage. To what extent can the Home Secretary provide the House with reassurance that that issue is being addressed, if, in fact, more resources are needed by the Security Service or the Secret Intelligence Service, whose budget has gone up very much less than that of the Security Service?

Jacqui Smith: I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will recognise that it was to provide that reassurance that I identified the concern in the report, and the view of the Government and the agencies, that the considerable increase in resources, while directed at supporting the counter-terror effort, nevertheless enables the agencies to build capability and flexibility. That means that although the amount of resource spent on, for example, counter-espionage is perhaps proportionally less, we can nevertheless be reassured—because counter-espionage work will be able to make use of the capability and resources that have been put in, particularly with respect to the Security Service—that those risks are being covered.

Michael Mates: Just to be quite clear, is the Home Secretary saying that the security services are not still worried that they are unable to put as much resource as they would wish into counter-espionage, because I am sure that she has been advised to the contrary?

Jacqui Smith: The right hon. Gentleman is right to the extent that the Committee highlights the difficult decisions that need to be made about priorities. However, I am reassured that the sorts of decisions being made about the investment of those resources are being made explicitly with the intention of ensuring that that extra resource—not only human resource, but resource in terms of capability and functions—will enable the flexibility to shift between priorities, if and when that becomes necessary.
	The ISC's reports are produced in accordance with the Committee's remit, as set out in the Intelligence Services Act 1994, which is to examine the agencies' expenditure, administration and policy. The Committee's remit is therefore identical to those of departmental Select Committees, but it was established under different arrangements, as we have heard, because of the unique and sensitive nature of its work. Those arrangements were carefully constructed to balance effective oversight of the agencies with the overriding need to preserve national security.

David Winnick: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way, and if I catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall certainly praise the work undertaken by MI5 and other security agencies. Does she agree that the allegation, which has been denied, that a British citizen was tortured in Pakistan and that British security not only was aware of that, but interrogated that British national while they were held by the Pakistani security authorities, is a very serious one? Would that not be a useful matter for the Committee to investigate, so that if the allegation is false, it can be cleared up once and for all?

Jacqui Smith: With respect to the latter part of my hon. Friend's intervention, I am sure that the Chairman of the Committee is better placed to respond than I am. Let us remember, however, that there has been a categorical denial of the allegation that my hon. Friend mentioned. This country and its intelligence and security agencies abhor torture and neither condone nor support the ability of others to carry it out.
	The ISC's remit often requires it to have access to highly classified information, which, if disclosed in public, would be gravely damaging to the national interest and could put individuals at risk. The ISC therefore operates in a ring of secrecy, with a legislative regime governing appointments to the Committee and the disclosure of information. Those arrangements have led to some commentators to argue—we have heard this today, too—that the ISC is insufficiently independent. As I suggested earlier, I am sure that such charges are viewed with justifiable indignation by ISC members past and present, all Members of one House or the other. I pay tribute to all who serve or have served on the Committee for their professionalism and, speaking as someone who has appeared before them, for their spirited independence, too.

Andrew MacKinlay: My right hon. Friend cannot get away with this. Whatever we might say in this place, it is no reflection on our colleagues; the important point is the principle of the thing. Just yesterday evening, Lord Campbell-Savours approached me about that specific point. When he was a member of the Committee, he challenged, both inside and outside, the nature of its selection. He says that it is flawed, and I believe that that is the view of some of those in the Chamber this afternoon who serve on the Committee. They think that the method of selection is wrong—in many respects it is an embarrassment—and they agree that the ISC should become a parliamentary Committee. My right hon. Friend should not try to divide us on this.

Jacqui Smith: Heaven forbid that I might suggest that my hon. Friend would ever be divided from any of his colleagues. I am coming on to the reform of the selection of the members of the Committee, which forms part of the function of the motions standing in my name. "The Governance of Britain", which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister launched last year, provided a new context in which to consider whether parliamentary oversight arrangements could be made more accountable and transparent. The Government concluded that significant improvements could be made and set out specific proposals in the White Paper published in March this year; the second motion standing in my name invites the House to endorse them. The aim is to bring arrangements governing the ISC and its operation as closely as possible into line with those governing departmental Select Committees.
	For the reasons of national security that I have mentioned, a legislative framework is essential. The White Paper describes changes that will achieve the aim within the existing legislative framework and which can be implemented immediately. The Government have not ruled out the possibility of legislative change in the future, but believe that the package of measures outlined in the White Paper will significantly increase the Committee's transparency and accountability to Parliament.

Richard Ottaway: The Home Secretary says that she has not ruled out statutory reform. When the Green Paper was published, the Prime Minister said in his statement that he thought that the Committee should have a strengthened capacity for investigations. That cannot be achieved without statutory reform. The Home Secretary's language rather suggests that that commitment is fading. Will she clarify the position one way or the other?

Jacqui Smith: I was just coming on to the point that we can more quickly ensure that there is the sort of investigative resource that the Committee, of which the hon. Gentleman is a member, is keen to have in place so that it can carry out its role. I do not believe that increasing that investigative capability does involve legislation. I think that we can do it more quickly than if we needed to legislate. Let me describe the proposals in greater detail.

Peter Kilfoyle: I have a very simple question. If American intelligence agencies can be called before congressional committees, why cannot a Committee of this House hold our agencies to account in the same way? I simply do not understand why that cannot happen.

Jacqui Smith: I am coming on to deal first with membership, secondly with how to make the Committee closer in nature to departmental Select Committees and thirdly with how we can perhaps open up the Committee to public sessions.

George Howarth: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the oversight arrangements in Congress are very different from those of the Intelligence and Security Committee and that, in particular, the congressional bodies are not given access to anything like the level of information that our ISC is?

Jacqui Smith: My right hon. Friend, who speaks from experience, refers to the very important balance that we have to achieve. In my view, it is fundamental to the Committee's role that it has the fullest possible access to classified material in order properly to carry out its functions. That, in itself, creates a constraint on the extent of the openness that is appropriate. It is a careful balance that we wrestle with whenever we consider the nature and reform of the Committee.
	Let me explain in greater detail how we propose to move towards greater transparency and accountability. First, on the appointment of ISC members, the Intelligence Services Act 1994 contains the explicit provision that ISC members are to be appointed by the Prime Minister in consultation with the Leader of the Opposition. It is the Prime Minister who is ultimately responsible for national security matters, so he is accountable for them to the House. It is therefore right that he should retain the ultimate say over who is admitted to that inner ring of secrecy. Within that framework, however, there is scope for giving a much greater role to Parliament. The White Paper proposed adopting a process similar to that for Joint Select Committee appointments. Following that model, the Government propose that future nominations for membership of the ISC should be put before the House by the Committee of Selection. Members will then have the opportunity to vote on the nominations that will be put to the Prime Minister for appointment. This model will ensure the full participation of Parliament in a transparent appointment process. It requires a new Standing Order of the House, which is the subject of the third motion in my name. The Government will seek to put comparable arrangements in place for Lords ISC members.
	Further measures will assist members of the ISC in fulfilling their statutory duties and add further emphasis to their independence. With the Committee, we will explore how some hearings might be structured to allow unclassified evidence to be heard in open session, as is generally the case with most Select Committees. Given the nature of most of the evidence that the Committee hears, evidence sessions have hitherto been conducted in private. That was, and on most occasions will remain, a prudent requirement for the protection of national security. The Government believe, however, that the public would welcome the opportunity to understand better how the Committee works. There could be no better way than to see it in action.
	We and the Committee will therefore look for opportunities when the subject matter would allow Ministers or agency heads—the chair of the Secret Intelligence Service, the director-general of the Security Service and the director of GCHQ—personally to give evidence in public briefing sessions.

Dominic Grieve: Perhaps I have interrupted the Home Secretary in mid-flow and prematurely. I am supportive of the Government's approach, as I will make clear in my remarks, but is there not a danger that if such public hearings are to take place, they will have to have a bit of meat in them? Otherwise, an impression will be conveyed to the public that the hearings are merely a rehearsal in front of the public—a show without substance. Although I will not object to the proposal, I have an anxiety that that might be the consequence, in which case people might end up more dissatisfied than they are at present.

Jacqui Smith: The hon. and learned Gentleman rightly identifies the risk and the challenge. Of course we must not put national security or the safety of individuals at risk, but we must also find a way of allowing for genuine and substantive public examination of the issues. Within those constraints, the Government would welcome such a move towards greater transparency.
	To return to the point made earlier, we will also explore how we might provide the Committee with additional support to enhance its abilities to conduct investigations. The ISC has employed its own investigator in the past, and the Government and Committee will draw on that previous experience to consider resources for future appointments and appropriate terms of reference. We will also explore how we might reinforce the ISC's independence by finding alternative secure accommodation outside the offices of the Cabinet secretariat. There should be no suggestion that the current co-location in any way compromises the Committee's independence. In the interests of transparency, however, a move would be preferable, and we are already exploring such options.

Michael Ancram: As the Home Secretary knows, most if not all members of the Committee agree with the recommendations that she is making. There is a concern, however, that we will be asked to do certain things, but not be provided with the financial resources to enable us to do them properly. Will she assure the House that that will not be the case?

Jacqui Smith: The Committee and its secretariat have rightly been in discussions with the Cabinet Office about ensuring that such resources are in place. Although all areas of government rightly face constraints, I hope to reassure the Committee that we recognise the resource implications of both the move and, for example, the investigators, and that those requirements will be met.
	One further issue has led some to question the independence of the ISC. As specified in the Intelligence Services Act 1994, its reports are submitted directly to the Prime Minister, whereas Select Committees report to the House. The Government do not propose a change to that arrangement. The ISC must have the ability, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth) said, to draw on its access to information of the highest classification when compiling its reports. But that means that its reports, too, contain highly classified information. Therefore, it is essential that the Prime Minister, as the ultimate guardian of national security, is the first to see the Committee's reports in their entirety. Subsequently, of course, a version of each report is prepared for publication and laid before the House. That version contains visible redactions, but only when publication would be damaging to national security. However, we believe that there is scope for further enhancing the independence of the ISC by ensuring that its Chairman opens debates on its reports in the House in future rather than a Government Minister.
	Although I have thoroughly enjoyed my experience of opening the debate today, I am pleased that in future that role will—rightly, in my view—be played by the Chair of the ISC herself. Again, that will bring ISC practice more into line with debates on Select Committee reports. In addition, the Government propose that there should be a new opportunity for debates on ISC reports in the House of Lords, opened by an appropriate ISC member.
	The Intelligence and Security Committee fulfils a vital role for Parliament and the wider public. That is evident from the report that the House is considering today. "The Governance of Britain" consultation outlined two aims for enhancing that role: increased transparency and greater accountability to Parliament. We believe that the proposals in the White Paper achieve those aims and they are reflected in the motions, which I commend to the House.

Dominic Grieve: I thank the Home Secretary for her presentation of the Government's position and for opening the debate on the report. It gives me great pleasure on a day when we have crossed swords across the Dispatch Box to have the opportunity to agree with a large part of everything that she has said.
	The report's position and the debate that we need to have this afternoon raise difficult issues. I have considerable sympathy with some of the things that the hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) is trying to achieve. There is no doubt in my mind that the position from the point of view of this House on the role of the Intelligence and Security Committee is by its very nature rather unsatisfactory.
	We have been given the opportunity to send some of our Members into the inner circles of intelligence to be provided with information. That might be of use to the Prime Minister, but it is fair to say, and this is not a criticism of the Committee or the Government, that when one comes to read an annual report such as this—the criticism might apply rather less to some of the more specific reports that are produced—it is a very anodyne document. The meat of what we would want to consider is largely absent and redacted out, affecting our ability to have a sensible debate on the Floor of the House. The issues about whether we are getting value for money from the agencies and whether the agencies are focusing on the issues that should be of primary concern to our country are largely impossible to address. I accept that, and I suspect that the Home Secretary accepts it, too. That is not to say that setting up the ISC was a bad idea nor to suggest that we cannot find valuable things in its work.
	Before I turn to the structures, I intend to attempt to focus a little on what the report actually says. It seems to me that unless we focus a little on some of the points, we might not be able to get clarity on the direction we ought to be travelling in as we try to improve the Committee's work and its methods of reporting. Let me turn briefly to what the report contains. The first thing that has become very striking—the Government will have to keep this in mind in the future as regards transparency —is that the agencies are costing more and more money. Within three years, as I understand it, £2.147 billion of public funds will be spent on the agencies' work. I think I am right in saying that that is more than the budget of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. What was originally a small area of Government expenditure is increasingly becoming a major area of expenditure or, at least, sufficiently large to focus Parliament's mind on the financial issues. That is particularly the case when one makes the link to the fact that what was previously regarded as work on counter-espionage now has work on counter-terrorism as its primary function and is, thus, a very live issue for this House and the public.
	I must say to the Home Secretary that there must be a question mark over whether further information could not reasonably be supplied to Members of Parliament. For example, paragraph 15 of the report provides us with the total breakdown of resources and capital for the entire intelligence agencies, but, for reasons that I understand, we are denied a breakdown between the services. There is an unsatisfactory element to this. Elsewhere in the report we can ascertain that, in terms of the rise in the number of personnel, the Security Service has benefited a lot in comparison with the Secret Intelligence Service, yet we know that much of the work on counter-terrorism that must be done to protect our country is being done abroad—indeed, that is hinted at elsewhere in the report. I am sure that the Home Secretary will appreciate that if it were possible for the House to be given further information about how the budget breaks down, we would find that immeasurably useful in playing our role as the scrutineers of public finances. I am, however, mindful of the difficulty that the Government have on the topic.

Michael Mates: My hon. and learned Friend will know that when the Committee started, no figures were published. We are pushing away at this door and making some progress. I want to reassure him that we will continue to push at this door, because I agree that the more we can put into the public domain, the better. However there are restraints: if we were to publish the breakdowns, we would show where the shoe was pinching and we do not, and should not, want those who are not friendly towards us to know that.

Dominic Grieve: I am grateful for my right hon. Friend's comments, and I have no difficulty in agreeing with everything that he said. Our enemies would be interested in knowing where the shoe is pinching, but, equally so would Parliament, because it might conclude that more funds should be made available or that the way in which the funds are prioritised does not provide the best value for money. Such a debate would, in an ideal world, be of interest to the Government, because history shows that when Governments are taken to task and held to account—politely, I would hope—in such matters, it often leads to improvements, whereas if such matters remain concealed within the Departments concerned, it makes life rather more difficult.
	I am mindful that we are very reliant on my right hon. Friend and the other members of the Committee, both those who are present today and those who are not, for their good sense in bringing to bear what pressure they can on the Government on these matters. Equally, it is right to point out that the Committee's members do not have, as an ordinary Select Committee has, the force of the House behind them in making those representations. We cannot simply ignore those issues.

George Howarth: It may help the hon. and learned Gentleman if I were to tell him that the Committee does play a role in examining the value-for-money aspect of the agencies. We are advised by the National Audit Office on the issues of concern that we should pursue. For some of our sittings in any given year, we take on a role that is, in many ways, not dissimilar to that of the Public Accounts Committee.

Dominic Grieve: I am very much aware of that, and I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for the work that is being done. I simply say that there remains a blank sheet of paper in respect of the House's ability to make such an assessment.
	I shall give an example of how it might be possible to revisit matters. We know that regionalisation policy in respect of the Security Service has been very successful. The Government say so and the Committee says so, and I have no reason to doubt that. However, we still have not been told where the regional centres are. I should say that I am satisfied that I know exactly where the regional centres are—and I have not been given leaked information—because the information is in the public domain, although kept out of the report. A sensible trawl of some of the information that is not being made public might reveal that much of it is easily accessible to anyone who wishes to discover it. That might enable a little more to be said publicly than is said at the moment.
	One of the issues that I want to see greater debate on is the respective roles of the Secret Intelligence Service and the Serious Organised Crime Agency. The report says that increasingly it might be possible to place greater reliance on the SOCA in counter-insurgency work, especially because of its involvement in counter-narcotics work. The point is also made that the Secret Intelligence Service has an important role in that and that some aspects of that have to be maintained as a priority, partly because of the work it does with our international partners. That is a fertile area for debate. SOCA is a legitimate subject for debate in the House, and indeed some anxieties have been expressed about whether it is functioning correctly. It will certainly be difficult for us to have any sensible discussion about an area that concerns crime prevention as much as it does national security unless further information can, from time to time, be provided that fleshes out the subject. It is only hinted at in the report.
	The report also says quite a lot about financial and resilience issues, and about GCHQ and the flooding that took place in Gloucestershire last year. It remains deliciously opaque whether the problem is with the disruption of personnel going to work or whether we have invested a large amount of money on a building located on a floodplain. That is a relevant consideration in view of the amount of money that we have sunk into it. I hope that we may have some further clarity on that.
	I do not want to labour these points too much, but I have serious anxieties about what emerges from the report—and what is not said—about the SCOPE programme. SCOPE 1, which is a major piece of Government investment in providing the software to enable the rapid exchange of information between different agencies, has apparently been successfully carried out. The report tells us that SCOPE 2 has been held up. In the last couple of days,  The Guardian has told us that, in fact, SCOPE 2 has been shelved, but the Committee's report tells us that it is an important project to enable information sharing. Given the Government's record on IT projects—although to be kind to the Home Secretary, I could say the same about every Government's track record on handling IT projects—that should be an issue of major concern to the House. I wonder whether the Minister who will respond to the debate can give us more information on that point without breaching security, because there is a clear difference between those two reports. Given the importance of SCOPE 2 in the context of the Government's overall strategy to make information readily exchangeable between agencies, it would be useful if we could have more information.
	I have conducted a quick trot around what is a dense report—I shall try to read it in greater detail to conjure up what might be hiding behind the asterisks—but I wish to turn to the issues on which we shall vote this afternoon. I entirely welcome the Government's concessions as set out in the White Paper, "The Governance of Britain". We will support them: they are welcome and, although they do not go far enough to meet the very understandable anxieties of the hon. Member for Thurrock, I am sure that he would be the first to accept that they go somewhere in the right direction.

Andrew MacKinlay: I think that they are a charade. Many hon. Members think that they amount to a major change, but no such change can be made until the next general election. An undisclosed codicil to the St. Andrews agreement means that the Democratic Unionist party could get a seat. If that happens, Plaid Cymru and the Scottish Nationalist party are also entitled to one. The Government have to bring primary legislation to the House before they can make any of the proposed changes. That is the truth, and the House needs to know it. I think that it is section 10 of the Intelligence Services Act 1994 that limits the Committee's membership to nine. Moreover, the fact that the Committee contains only one Member of the House of Lords makes it difficult for the Home Secretary to find appropriate representation for the other place.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman will have no need to catch my eye later, I think.

Andrew MacKinlay: Sorry about that!

Dominic Grieve: Perhaps I can reassure the hon. Gentleman. I certainly was not suggesting that these are major changes, and he is right that some of them are more statements of intent. However, to the extent that a statement of intent is better than nothing, I suppose that there might be a meeting of minds between us that the Government seem to be taking a step in the right direction. I am a great believer that such matters have their own dynamic. Once one starts freeing the logjam and accepting that the way in which a Committee operates is going to change, at least at some time in the future—and we will definitely keep pressure on the Government to honour their commitments in that respect—it is likely to follow of itself that those changes will generate pressure to bring about more change. The direction must be towards openness, and the Government would have to come up with some very good reasons indeed if they were not to ensure that.
	I shall listen very carefully to what the hon. Member for Thurrock has to say, but we take a rather pragmatic view. One difficulty that we share is that we are not privy to all the information on which a decision about whether his idea is a good one will be based. That may seem obvious, but it is the truth. We are sympathetic to what he is trying to achieve but we are not in a position to say to the Government that the problems that are identified with his proposals are not real.
	To an extent, we are guided by what members of the Committee say, although I am always conscious that there is a danger of them going native and ceasing to be the upholders of the interests of the House. When that happens, it is because they are lured magnetically into a world where the fact that rooms and secret information are made available to them gently and subtly affects their judgment. They are grateful for being made privy to matters that are not available to other people. That said, I would not in anyway wish it to be suggested that members of the Committee do not do a very valuable job—indeed, the very reverse: I have a very high opinion of their work.

Michael Ancram: I obviously hope that my hon. and learned Friend will one day be Home Secretary, but does he think that the danger that he has suggested applies to us will apply to him?

Dominic Grieve: I think that it almost certainly will. That is one of the inherent tensions in the different roles that one plays in Government and in the House. We cannot escape that, and it is wiser for the House to accept it openly and to tease out the consequences. The risk that I have described exists but we are fortunate that, over the time that the Committee has been operating, its reports and approach have consistently commanded widespread respect throughout the House. I am very grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for the work that is being done, and I am sure that everyone else is too.
	As I said, I shall listen to the hon. Member for Thurrock with great care but, for the reasons that I have set out, it seems to me that the points raised by the Home Secretary have some force. The danger that I foresee can happen very easily, even with Select Committees, and the danger is that if we start putting in place structures because the agencies involved no longer have confidence that the Committee is working in a way that will not adversely affect their operational capacity, the result will be that the information will start to dry up. At that point, we have the problem that the Committee can no longer do its work as well as it may be doing it at present.
	There is a dilemma here and I do not pretend to be able to resolve it, but I am grateful for the opportunity that we have had this afternoon to debate these matters.

Richard Ottaway: This may be a slightly unfair question, given that my hon. and learned Friend has only been in his job for a couple of weeks. The Home Secretary said that she did not rule out statutory reform in the future. Is that still his position? What is his approach to statutory reform?

Dominic Grieve: I probably failed to make that clear. We would, in government, look to see whether statutory reform could be introduced. Indeed, I go further: we would look to the issues that have been raised by the hon. Member for Thurrock to see whether they can be properly implemented, and whether we can create a Select Committee on much more traditional Select Committee lines. That is our view. But as I said, I do not have the information at present on which I could make such a decision. All I can say to the House is that that is an undertaking that I am quite happy to give.

Simon Burns: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I seek your advice? As I understand it, the Foreign Secretary is winding up the debate. We have now had the opening speeches by the Home Secretary and by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve), and presumably whoever winds up the debate will be winding up on the basis of what they have heard in the debate, so I was wondering whether the Foreign Secretary is actually going to pop into the debate during the unrolling of the contributions by Members.

Jacqui Smith: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Foreign Secretary has been inadvertently detained. I, of course, will ensure that the Foreign Secretary understands all the very apposite points that have been made so far in the debate, and I understand that he is on his way.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Clearly, the most satisfactory situation is one in which the Minister winding up has heard the proceedings during the debate. It is not a matter for the Chair to decide which Ministers respond to debates, but the whole House will have heard the points, and also the points that the Home Secretary has put on the record.

Margaret Beckett: I have had the privilege of chairing the Intelligence and Security Committee only since January this year, but I would like at once to record my own thanks, and that of all my Committee colleagues, I believe, to my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy), who is now Secretary of State for Wales, for his excellent leadership of the Committee from July 2005 to January 2008.
	The Committee's annual report focuses on its statutory role of examining the administration, policy and expenditure of the three agencies—the Security Service, the Secret Intelligence Service and the Government Communications Headquarters. It also examines matters relating to the wider intelligence community, such as the Joint Intelligence Committee and the defence intelligence staff. During the period covered by the report, the Committee held 49 formal meetings and 19 informal sessions and undertook a number of visits. It took evidence from Ministers, the police and senior officials, including the heads of the agencies and the chief of defence intelligence.
	I should like to put on record my very sincere thanks to the members of the Committee, from all parties and both Houses, for their continued hard work and commitment, as evidenced by—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Lady. I should have reminded the House—I am giving her time off for this—that there is now a 10-minute limit on all Back-Bench speeches.

Margaret Beckett: I am very conscious of it, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
	Committee members' hard work and commitment is evidenced by something—I hope that people will not take this amiss—that I feel few Select Committees can boast of: a more than 90 per cent. attendance at meetings. I also thank Committee members for the constructive and non-partisan way in which they approach their work.
	Since the report deals with the period before I joined the Committee, I will not seek to discuss its detail; in any event some members of the Committee, on both sides of the House, may wish to do so. But I want to point out that it identifies some ongoing concerns, such as anxiety about non-counter-terrorism work or about the potential impact of any attempt to use intercept material as evidence, and some issues that were then current, such as the BAE Saudi Arabia case.
	During 2006-07, the security and intelligence agencies faced a tremendous work load in their efforts to counter the international threat from terrorism. They had a number of successes: they disrupted an alleged airliner plot in 2006 and another plot to kidnap and murder a Muslim soldier in the west midlands in 2007. There were also a number of successful convictions, including those of five men involved in a fertiliser bomb plot and seven men associated with Dhiren Barot who were involved in planning attacks.
	The Committee would like to record its thanks and praise to the staff of the agencies for those and other unpublicised successes, but to reiterate that, despite hard work and increased resources, there is no guarantee that attack planning will always be detected and all attacks prevented in future. Some 200 extremist networks—of those that we know about—remain currently under investigation. Given that very real threat, it is an important part of the Committee's role to make public as much information as we can about the work of the agencies and to try to dispel some of the myths.
	There will always be limits on what we can say without putting at risk lives or operations or damaging the agencies' capabilities by revealing their methods, and we do not believe that the public would want that. So, as has been mentioned—I understand the concern—we redact or withhold sensitive information from the reports, replacing it with asterisks, but we also say that we have investigated the issues and whether we are satisfied or not satisfied, as the case may be.
	It is often alleged—we have touched on this today in the debate—that the asterisks in and omissions from the report mean that the Committee is not doing a proper job. There is an opposite argument: the asterisks are evidence that the Committee is doing a proper job, because they show that we have seen the evidence, are looking at all the information and reaching our conclusions based on the full facts. The fact that we cannot reveal all information in a public report is, as has been repeatedly said in the debate, perhaps an inevitable consequence of the subject matter with which we deal. If we published all that we were told, we could not provide proper scrutiny, because we would be unlikely to be given the information in the first place.
	The Committee is not, of course, the sole source of oversight. The interception of communications commissioner and the intelligence services commissioner check that the agencies act within the law, how powers conferred on the Secretaries of State are exercised and that warrants and authorisations are correct, proportionate and exercised correctly, so that they do not accidentally target the wrong person. They, too, report to the Prime Minister every year, and the Prime Minister lays the reports before Parliament.
	The investigatory powers tribunal was set up under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000. It exists to investigate complaints against the agencies from any person, regardless of nationality, and can investigate anything that an individual believes has happened to them, their property or their communications.

David Winnick: rose—

Margaret Beckett: I give way to my hon. Friend, who raised exactly that point.

David Winnick: My right hon. Friend probably heard my intervention on the Home Secretary in which I mentioned the serious allegations that a British national had been tortured by Pakistan's secret service and MI5 was aware of it, which has been denied. I do not want my right hon. Friend to commit herself, but will the Committee consider looking into those allegations and investigating accordingly?

Margaret Beckett: As I have already indicated, individual cases are matters for the tribunal. The Intelligence and Security Committee investigates the policy and, indeed, the implementation of the policy by the agencies; the tribunal looks at individual cases. However, I assure my hon. Friend that the Committee is aware and very mindful of the serious concerns that he has raised.

Chris Mullin: Am I right in thinking that the tribunal has never upheld a complaint?

Margaret Beckett: Not being a member of the tribunal, or—I fear—having yet closely studied its work, I am not sure. However, complaints are a matter for its very serious judgment and I am sure that it weighs them carefully, as all such bodies would.
	The commissioners to whom I referred check that the agency's actions are within the law. The tribunal investigates individuals' complaints, and the Intelligence and Security Committee examines administration, policy and expenditure, as do departmental Select Committees. The Intelligence and Security Committee itself was established by the Intelligence Services Act 1994. It set its own work programme, and that work has grown and developed over the years. The Committee produces not only an annual report but, as has been mentioned, ad hoc reports, most latterly on the subject of rendition. The Committee is composed of experienced parliamentarians who value their independence and work on a non-partisan basis to deliver rigorous scrutiny.
	As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said, however, after so many years it is definitely time to take stock of how the Committee works. When the Prime Minister first broached the issue of reform in the Green Paper "The Governance of Britain", he invited my predecessor to advise on how the Committee should be reformed—strengthened to enable even more effective oversight, while seeking to increase parliamentary accountability and public understanding.
	In many ways, the Committee's operations already parallel those of departmental Select Committees. It is the nature of the material that Committee members examine that means that we sit behind closed doors, as much of it, as has been said, cannot be put into the public domain. However, if today's motion is carried, the Committee will consider in the next Session whether there are areas of its work that can be discussed in public—for example, in relation to the national security strategy or the threat assessment. We hope that that will give greater insight into how the Committee works and reduce the level of secrecy when secrecy is not necessary.
	Another proposed change to which my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary referred is the proposal to re-explore the use of investigators. The Committee has used an investigator to examine administrative matters such as the vetting system and postal arrangements. However, I must emphasise that the Committee will nevertheless continue to conduct major inquiries itself. We all feel a responsibility to examine the evidence first hand on important issues such as rendition or the 7 July London bombings— [Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We cannot deal with things through sedentary interventions; we have already dealt with the matter that the Foreign Secretary and the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) have been chuntering about.

Margaret Beckett: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We feel that responsibility, but we believe that a pool of expert investigators such as those used by departmental Select Committees would be a welcome additional resource to help with our work. The Committee also welcomes the proposal that its reports be debated in the other place, because its membership is drawn from both Houses and it is important that debates are held in both Chambers. It is also important that there should be an opportunity to debate not only the Committee's annual reports, but all its infrequent ad hoc reports—not least because those ad hoc reports often generate the most interest. Debates on them would also increase awareness of the Committee's work among Members of both Houses.
	However, I want to stress the point made by members of the Committee in the debate and to which the Home Secretary responded. The changes that we are discussing cannot be implemented without additional resources. Indeed, welcome for the proposals has to be conditional on such resources being available, in what I completely recognise is a tight financial climate, to strengthen the secretariat, who are already very hard pressed and work very long hours. If the Committee is to maintain—let alone expand—its work load, that has to be taken into account.
	That said, I believe that the proposals will enhance the Committee's role, provide a greater role for Parliament and offer the public greater visibility of our work. It is vital—and this view is clearly shared across the House—that there should be rigorous and independent scrutiny of the agencies, and the Committee will continue to provide it.

Christopher Huhne: I apologise to the Home Secretary for missing the beginning of her speech. I am pleased to follow the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Margaret Beckett) and to know that the Intelligence and Security Committee is in her good hands; she has had experience in Government of dealing with many parts of the relevant agencies.
	We support the provisions in the White Paper, "The Governance of Britain". We will also support the amendments tabled by the hon. Members for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) and for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), which add to the transparency and accountability and, to some degree, clarify the separation of powers, which has become somewhat muddled in this area. We also welcome the Committee's authoritative and detailed annual report for 2006-07. I would particularly like to pay tribute to the work of my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith) on the Committee. Members might be aware that he is not present today because he is recovering from successful treatment for a heart problem. I am sure that all Members of the House wish him a speedy recovery. [Hon. Members: "Hear, hear."]
	I should also like to put on record on behalf of the Liberal Democrats our support for the brave work of the intelligence services in protecting the lives of our citizens and the safety of our communities. I very much hope that, in line with the right hon. Member for Derby, South's suggestion, we shall be able to have debates on the ad hoc reports of the Committee—as they sometimes highlight the very useful work that the intelligence services do—as well as on the annual report.
	I also note that the last ISC report was produced more than two years ago, and it is perhaps regrettable that we have not had a chance to discuss this matter before. The report that we are discussing today covers the period up to October 2007, and was published in January 2008. I hope that, in future, we can return to an annual cycle, because describing this as an annual report puts us at some risk of contravening the Trade Descriptions Act.
	We support the measures to bring the appointments procedure in line with standard practice, as set out in paragraph 237 of the White Paper, "The Governance of Britain", and the members of the Intelligence and Security Committee's standing order. It is right that Parliament, and not the Prime Minister, should have the primary role in nominating members of the Committee, if only to preserve some form of separation of the legislature from the Executive. The ISC must be independent of the Government, and it must be seen to be independent if its reports are to have the standing that they deserve. I believe that the intelligence services see the merit of that argument from their point of view as well, understandable though their concerns are about putting information that might be of use to our enemies into the public domain.
	We welcome the moves to explore alternative accommodation options for the ISC, with the necessary private, secure environment, away from the Cabinet Office. I hope that these are not just empty words, and that the Foreign Secretary will be able to give us more information on any progress in that regard when he replies to the debate. Perhaps in our debate on these matters next year, we will be able to have a report on the successful conclusion of that move.
	The issue of independence is at the heart of the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Thurrock. Obviously, the sensitive nature of the information being handled means that the Committee requires heavily security cleared and trusted staff, but I do not believe that such staff cannot be under the authority of the Clerk of the House. In fact, I can think of few people more highly regarded and trusted by Members on both sides of the House. It is also vital, especially as the ISC expands its investigatory work, that there is no question of the Executive having improper influence over the staff of the Committee.
	I am sure that the Minister will agree that public briefings by agency heads or Ministers are no replacement for a properly constituted public Committee meeting. We recognise that some meetings—indeed, probably the great majority of them—will need to be held in private. However, the ISC should have the option of meeting in public, and I was delighted to hear that possibility being mentioned by the right hon. Member for Derby, South. For this reason, we will support the amendments.
	In the debate on the previous report, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Clegg) expressed the Liberal Democrats' support for the regionalisation programme within the Security Service. We are delighted to hear that it has been such a success. I very much share the sentiments expressed by the hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve), who said that the excessiveness of the secrecy applied to the reports is demonstrated by the availability of the information on public websites. It might be sensible if, before the next report is sent to the House, the redactor checked exactly what is available in the public domain on websites; it tends to be rather more than we might like.

Dari Taylor: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will acknowledge that the Intelligence and Security Committee published its report in December 2007. It is now summer 2008. Since December 2007, much information has appeared in the public domain that was not previously available, so there is a time gap.

Christopher Huhne: I take the hon. Lady's point, and any information that was secret at the time of the report, but that has since become public, is not covered by my injunction. Nevertheless, I suspect that if the exercise that I suggested were carried out before the redaction of next year's report, the hon. Lady would still be surprised to discover just how much information was available on public websites. That is true with regard to many matters, not least Members' addresses. It is quite astonishing what one can find out on 192.com, without having to ring up a member of the Security Service.

Julian Lewis: I cannot resist taking this opportunity to say that although the hon. Gentleman thought he would be able to get my address on 192.com, I checked it out, and he would not have succeeded. The main point is that there is a difference between something being available on some unauthorised site on the internet, and something being confirmed in an official publication.

Christopher Huhne: I take the hon. Gentleman's point, and I will not try to transgress the boundaries of what is relevant to the debate any longer. I take what he says on board.
	Members will be aware of the Liberal Democrats' long-standing concern about the decision to halt the Serious Fraud Office investigation into BAE Systems' dealings with Saudi Arabia. I do not wish to repeat our position, which my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) has made clear in numerous debates in the House, but it disappoints us that the ISC was refused sight of the minute from the Prime Minister to the Attorney-General that accompanied the note, "The Saudi contribution to our domestic and international efforts to combat terrorism". That whole episode has done great damage to our reputation at home and abroad. I note that the Committee states that it
	"is satisfied that...there were serious national security considerations which contributed to the Serious Fraud Office's decision to halt the investigation".
	Obviously, I can only take the Committee at its word, but the fact that investigations into corruption must be stopped for that reason does not, in the public's mind, reflect well on the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Government or the security services.

Si�n Simon: The hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) was careful to say that although we want to push the envelope, as far as transparency and accountability are concerned, we do not want to risk second-guessing things that we do not really know about. Are not the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Chris Huhne) and his Front-Bench colleagues already crossing that line?

Christopher Huhne: I do not believe that I am crossing that line in relation to the issue of whether to intervene in a legal investigation, because there are wider considerations than those that are of concern to the intelligence services, not least among which is the reputation of British businesses. How many of them will lose business as a result of clients' fears that if they do business with British businesses, it might be taken as a sign that they are in receipt of corrupt payments or bribes? There are wider considerations, and although the Foreign Secretary, whom we welcome to the Chamber, is chortling at that, I assure him that in many parts of the world it is significant for clients to know that business contracts are being signed for the right reasons, not the wrong ones.
	I note that the Committee has reiterated the importance of intercept evidence, while respecting the point that we await the result of the Government's deliberations on the Chilcot review. We hope that a resolution can quickly be found that allows for the successful prosecution of terror suspects by using intercept evidence while protecting the needs of our security services. We know, for example, that that has been done successfully in the United States and Australia, both of which are in close intelligence relationships with our intelligence services. Liberal Democrat Members therefore see no reason why we should not proceed.
	In July 2007, the ISC produced its special report on rendition, which shows the important work that the ISC must be allowed to perform on the operations of the intelligence services. I pay tribute to the Committee for that work.
	Reports such as this seem to show the importance of having an investigator with extensive powers. It is disappointing that the Committee has been without an investigator since 2004, when the then investigator, John Morrison, appeared on Panorama, after which his contract wasperhaps unsurprisinglynot renewed. It is surely possible for the Committee to find an investigator whose contractual terms ensure that they do not pop up on prime-time television. Although we welcome the commitment in the reform proposals to appoint an investigatory team, I hope that the skills and experience of that team are well used and allow greater scrutiny.
	Overall, we welcome the report and the suggested reforms. We hope that debates will become annual and that the independence of the ISC will be cemented by the acceptance of the amendment. We also congratulate the staff of the intelligence services on their work.

Dari Taylor: It is pleasing to hear that the Government attach importance to the work of the ISC. The belief that the Committee provides independent and effective parliamentary oversight is gratifying. We spend hours and hours on that work: I make no complaint, but it is worth putting on record that we spend as much time as it takes, and more, if we think that the answers that we have been given are not as complete as they should be.  [ Interruption. ] I am no poodle, and I think that the House recognises that fact.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) chaired the Committee in 2006-07, when the report was compiled. His chairmanship was often humorous, always purposeful and much appreciated. Today, we are chaired by my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Margaret Beckett). The House has witnessed her detailed grasp of the issues today, and it is a privilege to serve under her chairmanship.
	Like all ISC members, I want to express my thanks to the ISC staff. The staff are half the size of that of most Select Committees, but they are competent and manage an enormous work load. It is a long time since the Committee took evidence from the agencies for the 2006-07 annual report. Even so, the belief remains fresh in my mind that Britain has security agencies that are adaptive and innovative in dealing with the challenges presented by some very difficult times.
	The evidence makes it clear that we should all acknowledge two factors. First, intelligence is invariably fragmentary and partial, rather than a complete picture. It is information gained against the wishes, and usually without the knowledge, of targets. Complex analysis is required to evaluate intelligence. Secondly, intelligence is never an end in itself. It serves to inform an understanding of risks and threats, to provide warning and to define the need for investigation or disruptive action. That is the complex area in which our agencies are working. Following the Committee's purposeful evidence sittings with the agencies, I am confident in saying that the staff of the agencies understand the complexities of the various roles that they must perform and energetically and enthusiastically manage enormous tasks.

Peter Kilfoyle: rose

Dari Taylor: I feel that I should give way to my hon. Friend, if he has called me a poodle.

Peter Kilfoyle: I do not know whether I should be grateful to my hon. Friend. I referred to the Committee, having sat on the Committee that set it up, as a poodle of the Prime Minister of the day. If there was any inference against individual members of the Committee, I join my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) in saying that there is no reflection on themit is to do with the concept of the Committee itself.
	In light of my hon. Friend's encomium for the security services and their sagacity in all matters to do with our security, does she appreciate that, since the sexed-up dossier, and before that, many people do not see them like that? In her view, what has changed in recent years, since that tremendously tragic mistake, to reinforce our faith that they would not repeat that kind of wrong analysis?

Dari Taylor: I wish that there were an answer that would reassure us that there will never again be a 7/7, but sadly, as my hon. Friend knows, that answer cannot be given. Terrorists have to be right once; the agencies, and all of us, have to be right all the time if we are to protect ourselves. Frankly, the question was inappropriate.

Gordon Prentice: rose

Dari Taylor: I will not give way at the moment, but I will shortly.
	In the 2006-07 report, many of the agencies commented that there was a level of satisfaction about the finances provided by the Government. The hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve), who is not in his place, made the appropriate statement that a significant amount of money is being spent, which must be monitored at all times. I entirely agree with that, as, I believe, does every Committee member. I would add, however, that when we talked about the resources that the agencies have, the former director general said:
	my main concern has been, and still is, we do not have enough people to do the job.
	I have never interpreted that statement as referring to the number of people they employ, which has grown considerably; I interpret it as referring to the scale of requirements.
	Over the years, certainly since 7/7, we have become much more aware of the growth of potential terrorist activity. The agencies know that 200 extremist networks are currently under investigation, some with the intent and capability of carrying out attacks against the UK. Special branch has added to that by stating that there are 2,000 individuals in the UK about which it has concerna very careful use of languageand that those people often have multiple identities. Worse than that, the situation is so different from that which we had to face in Ireland. The people involved are part of informal networks, not formal ones that we could recognise, and did recogniseand, of course, there are others about which little or nothing is known.
	Serious concern is being expressed that there are not enough people to do the job. That has to be seen in the context of the scale of requirements. We have to acknowledge the complex nature and size of the problem that fundamentalism represents. The agencies have an enormous job to do in achieving a safe Britain.

Gordon Prentice: There has been an explosion in the number of people working at GCHQ and the other security agencies. Has my friend's Committee given any time to examining recruitment practices and suchlike, given that very little in the report touches on those matters?

Dari Taylor: That was a very positive question about something that the Committee should consider in greater detail. In fact, we have done some work in this field, and it is a mistake that we have not referenced it. I will comment on that a little further in my speech if I have time.
	There is a positive response to the work load that the agencies face. People who have read the report will know that there is an increasing determination to work collaboratively. I see that not simply as valuable, but as invaluable and essential. I am sorry that it has taken the agencies so long to get to the point where they are working much more collaboratively. There has clearly been less competition between them, less exclusivity of knowledge and less scoring points off each other. Perhaps we would all have anticipated that after 7/7; there is no longer any room for such boys' games, if the House will excuse the expression.
	It is not just that the agencies' way of working is much more collaborative. We have supported collaboration. We heard from the hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield about SCOPE. He was cautiously but clearly critical about the fact that the overseas project has still not been fielded. We have also been critical about the slowness with which SCOPE has delivered. The intentions of SCOPE are excellent; the delivery programme has been less so.
	Again, it is important for us to see the matter as it is. SCOPE is a secure electronic communication system transferring known intelligence, and inevitably we would all see that as totally appropriate. We know that Departments and agencies can ask for information and that it is delivered in 15 minutespreviously, it took 12 hours. There is no doubt in my mind that it is an excellent piece of kit, which we have to support. I am confident that, although the way in which it is used internationally has slipped, it will be used and it will be of considerable value.
	I would like to refer to another bit of technical kit that is of incredible value. GCHQ has been modernising SIGINTsignals intelligence. This programme, across the piece, for all agencies, enables the efficient and effective management of a vast bulk of information. It supports collaboration. Reference was made from the Front Bench to the worry that counter-terrorism operations have taken over, and that counter-espionage programmes are now less and less well funded. Again, the Committee shares that consideration, and it is resolved to monitor the comprehensive spending review settlement for 2007. We hope to come back to the House to report that counter-espionage is covered as well as it should be.
	I would like to return to a particular use of language that worried me throughout the time we did the reportwe do not have enough people to do the job. The House should realise that a different factor is involved. The agencies, with a vast increase in moneys and a determination to increase their staffexponentially, it appears at timesare selecting from the same pool, which is getting smaller and smaller. That presents the risk for all of us that they could be selecting the wrong people. Significantly, in addition, we could be relying more and more on less and less experienced operatives. Worse than that, with reference to what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice), it is clear that this group could be receiving less and less training, which is certainly problematic. The Committee most certainly needs to carry out another investigation into that area.
	The agencies work very hard. I sound very confident about that, and I may sound too confident and too defensive about their work. I am as abrasive with them as I probably sound to the House this afternoon. I acknowledge the enormous work load that they have to accommodate because it is added to by a requirement, outlined in the report, to increase coverage and operational capability in key countries. That is an important part of the work that the Secret Intelligence Service and MI5 must do. It is fundamental to ensuring that we understand where terrorism could be tracked and could hit Great Britain. They must not only widen their scope and involve key countries, but ensure that they understand the factors that influence radicalisation. Of course, regional teams have been developed.
	I feel privileged to serve on the Committee. It is hard and interesting work. The Committee works effectively, objectively and independently. I would hate it if others thought otherwise.

Michael Mates: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Ms Taylor). Let me pick up on her point about recruitment and experience. I do not believe that we risk recruiting the wrong peoplethe standard is extraordinarily highbut the consequence of the speed of expansion is that people with experience of a year or 18 months are doing jobs that would previously have been done by those who had been in the services for three or four years. The heads of the services have acknowledged that risk. It has to be accepted because of the necessity for the vast increase in staff.
	The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle) may not have got his earlier question across clearly. He asked how the intelligence failure that led to the sexed-up dossier could be prevented from happening again. I had the privilege of serving on the Butler review. It was not the intelligence but the use that was made of it that was the problem. If the hon. Gentleman examines the Butler review, he will find that we commented robustly that the dossier went to the limit, if not beyond, of what the intelligence could bear.

Peter Kilfoyle: I do not want to detract from the right hon. Gentleman's speech, but I have examined the Butler review many times. I am sure that he accepts that where the intelligence ended and the political misjudgments began is a matter for debate.

Michael Mates: I disagree because I believe that the report analysed that. The intelligence was honest and straight. The use that was made of it is the subject of political debate, but it is not for today.
	I shall be briefI want to make only two main points. First, I do not support the amendment that the hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) tabled, not because I am a poodle or part of a gone-native club, but because of the practicalities of his proposal.
	If the Committee came under the authority of the Clerk of the House, it would have to be staffed by Clerks, none of whom, as far as I know, is as deeply vetted as all the staff of our Committee are. If one were absent, he could not be replaced unless someone else were deeply vetted and that takes a long time. We have restrictions on accommodation because we see the most secret intelligence, for which there are strict rules. They could not be followed with any ease in the House of Commons, where there is constant public access, without having a place with separate security and separate guards, 24 hours a day, as happens in our current accommodation. It is therefore not the principle so much as the practicality of the proposal to which I object. I would like the Committee to become as normal as possible, but the key word is possible.  [Laughter.] I do not know what I have said that is so funny. Everything must be compared with the strict security requirements under which we currently operate. That is why I do not support the amendment.
	Secondly, redactions are an old chestnut, which come up every time we debate the matter. We have to redact some things from our report, which must go first to the Prime Minister. That cannot be changed. If the Committee were an ordinary Select Committee, any evidence given to it would become the property of the House, as the hon. Member for Thurrock knows. One cannot do that with secret intelligence. If the position were forced on the Committee, we would not get any more secret intelligence and that would render us ineffective. However, we report everything that we have discovered to the Prime Minister, who sees the report complete and unredacted. Indeed, I think that I can tell the House that there were reports a long time ago that were never published, because the subject matter was too secret. However, the Prime Minister needed the information; he needed to know that the money had been properly spent and administered and that we had got value for money. It took the Committee a long time to look into such things, and we reported them to him, but we can take none of the credit, because nobody knows what we did. Again, that is unavoidable when one is dealing with the sort of subjects that the Committee has to deal with day in, day out. I agree with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) that when we redact, we must always push the envelope and have a robust exchange. Clearly, the Government and the agencies say, You can't possibly say that, but we test them, we move them a little and we sometimes move them a lot.
	Ultimately, nothing has ever been left out of one of our reports without our agreement. The statute says that nothing can be put into one of our reports that might damage national security or the operation of the security services, and that has always been the case in the 14 years that I have been on the Committee. Let me tell the Foreign Secretary with all the power that I can musterI hope that he will tell the Home Secretary, who I had hoped would be here as wellnot to break that convention. If the Government were to do so, that would damage severely relationships and put the relationship between the Committee and the Government in quite a different light. That relationship has always worked until now. We have honoured the Government's need for security, and the Government must consider the issue very deeply before they decide to go against what has been a thoroughly worthwhile convention.
	I will not go into the report, because lots of others want to speak, and they will have read it. However, I stand by it and I disagree completely with the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Thurrock.

David Winnick: I want to make some points about changes to the Committee. First, let me say that I recognise the work that the Committee has done. I am sure that its members have carried out their duties conscientiously. I have read the Committee's reports regularly, not only this year, but in previous years.
	The work that the security agencies carry out to prevent acts of mass murder is recognised by all of us. There is no doubt that there are extremists who want to repeat 7/7 and what was attempted a fortnight later; they want to carry out mass murders, atrocities and the rest. None of us can have the slightest doubt that the situation remains as it was three years ago and that there are violent extremists with a religious agenda, and it is pretty obvious what they would like to do. Dealing with such individuals and locating their plots must be more difficult for MI5 than its previous work in dealing with extremists with no religious agenda whatever.
	In speaking about the need for changes, I want to remind hon. Members of what happened before the security agencies were established on a statutory basis. I had one or two debates in the 1980s in which I suggested that there should be some parliamentary accountability for MI5. The ministerial response at the time, which would no doubt have been the same under a Labour GovernmentI have no illusions on that scorewas that it was simply impossible to have such parliamentary accountability and that the very nature of the work of the security services was such that there could be no question of establishing any kind of committee. I was always told, as other critics were, Don't worry overmuch. The security agencies are accountable to the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary, who in turn are responsible to Parliament. I was told, in effect, Why worry about the matter at all?
	The changes that came about for various reasonsin 1989, MI5 was placed on a statutory basis, as MI6 was later, and in 1994, the Intelligence and Security Committee was formedwere all welcome steps; certainly I welcomed them. I pointed outI was hardly the only onethat the Committee functions and the method of appointment should be somewhat different. I argued that it should be a Select Committee of the House of Commonsnot a normal Select Committee, but along those linesbut that was obviously rejected.
	I hope that the Foreign Secretary will not misunderstand me when I tell him that, long before he arrived here, when a measure relating to that issue was considered during the Committee stage upstairs, the Labour Front-Bench spokesman argued more or less what I have just been saying. The story goes that when John Smith, the then leader of the party, heard about it, he said to my colleague who led for us, Why on earth did you say all that? We have no intention of doing that in government. That is how the story goes. Nevertheless, we put the case in Committee, but we were not surprised when the Government took the line that they did.
	I felt that the formation of the ISC was undoubtedly a step forward. There would be some limitedyes, limitedparliamentary accountability, which had not existed before. I welcomed that. I was not too critical, as my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle) was a moment ago, about those who were appointednot selectedby the Prime Minister.

Peter Kilfoyle: I obviously did not make myself very clear, so can I lay this one down once and for all? I have never criticised the individuals concerned, any more than my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) has. It is the Committee itself, from its inception, that I have called a poodle.

David Winnick: I take my hon. Friend's point entirely, but I do not go along with him, because I do not think that the Committee is a poodle. It has carried out useful work, although I at least agree with him about the method of selection.
	On selection, the Government's proposal to involve the Committee of Selection is welcome, but let us not be naive. The Committee of Selection decides on the recommendations made by the Whips. That has been the situation in the House of Commons for at least 100 years, and it is not going to change in the next Parliament or the one after. It is therefore pretty clear thatI think that this is the wordingthose who are going to be recommended by the Committee of Selection to the Prime Minister will be precisely those who at present are appointed by the Prime Minister. I do not really have any doubts about that; nevertheless, if the formalities are observed, there will at least be an opportunity for a debate to take place, on the Floor of the House if necessary, which cannot happen now. That is a step forward.

Peter Kilfoyle: If the Committee of Selection were to appoint on that basis, would the Chairman of the Intelligence and Security Committee not be more secure and even more independent? We all recall the kerfuffle when the Government of the day tried to get rid of the then Chairmen of the Select Committee on Transport and the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs. It was this House, in its indignation, that ensured that they remained in situ.

David Winnick: Indeed, that incident, which was a compliment to the House of Commons, took place precisely seven years ago yesterday. I agree with my hon. Friend that if the Chairman is appointed as proposed, he will be strengthened accordingly, and I am all for that.
	The purpose of my amendment is to state what the Green Paper in fact said, and give the Committee
	the option to meet in public (including, if Parliament agrees, in the Houses of Parliament).
	To avoid any distortion of what I am saying, it is necessary to point out that I entirely accept that most of the Committee's work will be in private: it must be in private and I doubt whether anyone would disagree in any way, shape or form. It is important, however, that at least some of the Committee's workon the financial aspects, for examplebe done in public.
	I welcome the fact that the director general of MI5 gives a public address and that, unlike in previous years when the identity was known but kept a secret, everyone knows who it is. That being the case, with the director general going public like the present occupant and their predecessor, why on earth should it be inappropriate for certain sittings, where there is no danger to national security, to be held in public? All that I am saying in the amendment was outlined in the Green Paper, but the White Paper has unfortunately fallen short of that position to some extent.

Michael Mates: It is one thing for the director general to make a speech when he knows what he is going to say, he says what he wants to say and he clears it in advance if necessary, but it is quite another for him to appear before a Committee where he would have to answer questions. The questions would be very difficult to ask and they would probably have to be rehearsed to ensure that no breach of national security would arise from either the question or the answer. I suspect that that would very soon come to be seen as something of a charade. I am not saying that it should never happen, but questioning the heads of the services would be a very difficult operation.

David Winnick: I do not deny that there will be some problems, but I must say to the right hon. Gentleman that very similar points were put to me before MI5 and MI6 were placed on a statutory basis, when we were told that this, that and the other reforms were out the question. If public sessions do indeed take place, as they may, according to the Home Secretary and the Chairman of the Committee, it is unlikely that we will revert to a situation where no public hearings would ever occur again. It is, of course, a question of balance. I am the first to accept that certain matters should not under any circumstances be dealt with in public, but I believe that other matters could and should be. We are moving along those lines.
	At the end of the process, we want Parliament to have a direct role in the work of the ISC. To some extent, that has already arisen; after all, we are having a debate that arises from the annual report. We need to go a little furthernot as far as possible, perhaps, but more than at present. I understand the comments of my right hon. Friends the Home Secretary and the ISC Chairman to indicate that public hearings are not being ruled out and that there is a possibility that they will occur in the near future, which is a welcome step.

Richard Ottaway: I will deal with some of the points raised by the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick). I believe that there is an element of truth in what he is saying, but that he is missing out certain aspects of the problem. I hope that it will not spoil the career of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle) if I say that I am a bit of a fan, but I do not consider myself a poodle and I do not think either that he was accusing me of being a poodle.
	I welcome the annual report. There is nothing unusual in it. Its main feature is the growth of the agencies in response to the post-9/11 eraan inevitable fact of life. Earlier in the year, we produced an important report on rendition: Members have alluded to it and it has been widely discussed. However, it is on the proposed reforms that I would like to concentrate my remarks.
	I do not belittle any of the reforms; I support them. I took part in the debate inside the Committee. Appointments by the Committee of Selection are a good idea, but let us not kid ourselves that they will produce a fresh set of characters. The system will continue, and the usual types will surface. To that extent, the process is largely cosmetic.
	It is right and proper that the Committee Chairman should introduce the debate, but it will not change the tone of the debate much, other than that she will get more than 10 minutes in which to make her speech. The Committee already has the power to appoint an investigator. In truth, the problem lies more in the question of resources, which was raised by the Committee Chairman, the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Margaret Beckett), and in the physical cost of accommodating and managing an investigator.
	On the issues raised by the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), it will be a change to have public hearings, but my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Mr. Mates) was absolutely on the button when he said that the scope will be limited. It will happenI am pretty sure that there is a determination to do itbut let us not get carried away about how effective and revealing the hearings will be. To that extent, again, the change will be somewhat cosmetic.
	Let me touch on the statutory reforms that have not been discussed today. In 2007, the Green Paper said that the Act
	should be amended to bring the way in which
	the ISC
	is appointed, operates and reports as far as possible into line with that of other select committees.
	So far, so good. The Prime Minister went on to say that the ISC should have a strengthened capacity for investigations. Listening to the Home Secretary today, I thought that that commitment was fading a little. In his statement on national security strategy, the Prime Minister spoke of current reforms in advance of future legislation, but what that would be was not elucidated. A couple of weeks later, The Governance of Britain White Paper made no reference to statutory reforms.
	Statutory reforms should be considered in a number of areas. If we are to have the Prime Minister's strengthened capacity for investigations, the first area to consider is documentation. In response to my intervention, the Home Secretary said that the Committee will be able to have an investigator, as if that were the extra, strengthened capacity. As I said, however, we already have that power, so nothing much is coming on that front. Documentation, and that on which we can draw, needs to be considered.
	The reports on rendition and 7/7 are extra-curricularthey sit outside the legislation. The invitation to the Committee to conduct the reports carries with it the implied request that the agencies should supply us with whatever documentation is necessary to do the job. In the wide range of our activity, the Committee should have the power to request whatever is necessary to do the job. As we consider reforms, that should be the default setting.
	Secondly, we need to look at the issue of the witnesses who come before us. Again, I do not have a precise, concrete proposal, but I have the feeling that one wants to call people whom we do not have the power to call at the moment. That extra power is needed. Consideration should be given to the way in which witnesses can be brought before Committees.
	I will return to that point in a moment, but I want to touch on the difference between the ISC and a Select Committee. As the hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) knows, I have served on bothI have been on the ISC for three years, and I was on the Foreign Affairs Committee with him when we investigated the war in Iraq. We had the Gilligan report, David Kelly being put before us by the Government, his subsequent suicide, and the Hutton inquiry. It was not exactly a low-profile Select Committee. In fact, for those of us on it, it was a fairly unforgettable experience.
	So, if the ISC were to become a Select Committee, its members would have to be notified under the Official Secrets Act 1989, which would immediately take it out of the Select Committee system. It would have to meet wholly in secret and could not report to Parliament without redactions. All those points have been well made by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire. The Clerks of the House and of the ISC are of the highest calibre, and they would perform an identical function, so it would not make any difference to that extent, but Clerks would have to be vetted and cleared. The evidence would have to be given by the agency heads in secret and we cannot get away from the fact that that information could not be published.

Michael Mates: It is perhaps worth pointing out to the hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) that when we last appointed a Clerk, one of the candidates was from the body of the Clerks of the House. We could perfectly well have chosen him. He did not, in our view, turn out to be the best candidate, but we are not prevented from using the resources of the Clerks of the House. If someone applies for the job, we are perfectly able to appoint him.

Richard Ottaway: My right hon. Friend makes a perfectly good point.
	Let me go back to the point that I was making a second ago about evidence. The key difference is that the Select Committee on Transport, for example, has employees, businesses, users, passengers, station masters and so on coming before it. One simply does not get that in the intelligence world, as there is no equivalent. There are plenty of conspiracy theorists out there, but there is not enough time to address all their arguments. In truth, our input is predominantly from agents. If we were sitting as a Select Committee, that input would be limited.
	When I joined the Committee, I was fairly sympathetic to the idea of its becoming a Select Committee after my experience on the Foreign Affairs Committee. Having been on it for three years, I have simply reached the conclusion that that would not be an improvement, that the situation would probably be worse and that it would be less effective. We should focus on making the ISC as similar as possible to a Select Committee, which is what we are trying to do, subject to the reforms that I am suggesting.
	I feel most uncomfortable with the question about the precise role of the ISC. Is it with the agencies or against them? Does it provide oversight or a check or balance? The Committee's job is defined, as is the job of a Select Committee, as the provision of oversight of policy, finance and administration. That definition is wide and vague, and can be broadly or narrowly interpreted. During my time on the ISC, I have seen a narrow interpretation. A Select Committee has more freedom to range and is wide-ranging in its scope. My third proposal for statutory reform is a clearer statutory definition of the role of the Committee combined with powers to deliver on it.
	Let me conclude with the point made by the Chairman of the Committee about resources. The ISC has fewer resources than a Select Committee has. It has fewer staff. If we are to up our game, we have to bite the bullet and give more resources to the Committee. Without those resources, no serious progress can be made. Let me allude, too, to the issue of accommodation for the Committee. The White Paper said that the Committee should not sit in the Cabinet Office. When the Foreign Secretary is winding up, will he mention whether he feels that we should move out of Cabinet Office facilities, by which, of course, I mean the wider Cabinet Office estate? Does he feel that the wider Cabinet Office estate is an appropriate setting for the Committee's location?

David Miliband: The Foreign Office.

Richard Ottaway: There are, of course, facilities adjacent to the Foreign Office that the right hon. Gentleman might want to think about.
	In short, I think that the ISC can do the job if it is given the powers to do it.

Andrew MacKinlay: I am grateful for having caught your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Let me make it clear that I acknowledge that the intelligence and security community has had enormous successes on behalf of all of us in combating terrorism, and I wish it well in that continuing role. I have more of an open mind on another of its aspectscombating organised crimebecause part of my thesis is that inadequate information is available to Parliament to evaluate its stewardship, conduct and competence in this regard. In respect of espionage, I have some doubts, because it seems that the same cold war rhetoricthe reference to diplomats as spiesis used in London and in Moscow. It sometimes does not seem mature, given that we recognise that every person in the Russian embassy has been allowed by the Foreign Secretary to be there and that the same thing happens in Moscow. A lot of energy is used on that, rather than on combating espionage, which I am all for. The cold war rhetoric impedes our foreign policy and our building the necessary relationship with the Russian Federation.
	Against that backdrop, I referred in the House on 22 MayI do not want to labour the point againto what I consider to be an affront not only to me, but to Parliament. I am talking about MI5's approach to the Government Chief Whip and my being told, You are being targeted by a Russian spy. Those were the precise words. I find that menacing, intimidating and inappropriate in a free Parliament. I want to make it clear that so long as I am a Member of Parliament, I intend to meet whom I like, when I like and where I likemy chosen place is here. I want to say that in not only my interests, but those of Parliament. Everyone here knows that, by definition, a Member of Parliament has no secrets; the only secrets we can share are predictions about possible political developments in the United Kingdom.

David Winnick: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Andrew MacKinlay: If my hon. Friend does not mind, I shall not, because other hon. Members wish to speak. Some people treat the matter that I am discussing with levity, but it is desperately serious. I just wanted to place that on the record.
	I come to the motions. I have listened carefully to the interesting comments of hon. Members, both those who are members of the ISC and others. There is demonstrably now a mood to revisit the Intelligence Services Act 1994, and the Government motions invite us to do that. If we adopt the Government's motions tonight, nothing will appreciably happen immediately; any change will take place after the next general election. Their motions would require an amendment to the 1994 Act, as would my amendment.
	I listened carefully to what the hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) said, and I was grateful for his invitation to give him reassurance. I believe in gradualism in these matters. If my modest amendment were adopted tonight, it would not immediately alter things; it would clearly be the subject of further discussions between the security services and Parliament, and it would have to be enacted by primary legislation. That is why I invite the House, if it is favourably disposed in principle, to increasing the parliamentary status of the work done by the ISC, to support my amendment as an expression of will. I think it would help because this is a question of public confidence.
	As has been said by the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Richard Ottaway) and others, including, even the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Mr. Mates), the ISC will always be a special Committee. Its accommodation may have to be in a different place, but to have the Clerk of the House of Commons providing the secretaryship would send an enormous signal to increase public confidencethis is most necessary. I tabled a question asking who the ISC's Clerk is, but the parliamentary reply said, We won't tell you; its a secret. That is indicative of the obsessive secrecy that exists, and I do not think it is healthy in a democracy.
	I listened and learned this afternoon. I realise that the Committee has to deal with some big-picture stuff, but there is therefore a voida flawthat is not being met by our parliamentary institutions. Let me give an example of that. Although we had a statement on the loss of data on the Waterloo train, Parliament should investigate that event. At the least, we need to know that a Committee is investigating itwe are not told what the ISC is doingyet this relates to the stewardship and management of our security and intelligence services. I have no confidence, and I do not think that anyone else does, that this is being dealt with properly.
	Some people might consider this a trivial point, but because I am interested in the stewardship, conduct and management of those services, I cheekily asked how many members of the Joint Intelligence Committee had been given honours in the new year's honours list. I cannot be told that, because it is a secret.

Michael Mates: The hon. Gentleman has got it wrong again. If the ISC looked into an incident such as the loss of documents on a train, which is a very serious matter, we would be in exactly the same position as any other Member. The incident is being investigated by the police and by an internal disciplinary process, and no Committee of this House would ever interfere in the matter or would question those proceedings until they were over. When those proceedings are over, a decision may have to be taken.

Andrew MacKinlay: That may be, but we are devoting a mere three and a half hours to a most important subjectand that will be our lot in one and a half years. We have been told that the report is now six months old. The House is abdicating its responsibility to keep security and intelligence under scrutiny and it is a sham that we have such a short time. Scrutiny is totally inadequate, so even if we did investigate the loss of data, we would not have time to probe the matter properly.
	I support the Government's motions, but their importance is exaggerated. Even if they are agreed tonight, we will still need primary legislation. We know that the Democratic Unionist party has, rightly, been promised a seat on the ISC, as part of the St. Andrew's agreement and because responsibility for national security in Northern Ireland has been taken from the Police Service of Northern Ireland and given to MI5. Why do we not come clean and expedite legislation that would increase the membership? Only one member comes from the House of Lords, for example.
	Nor have we used this occasion to probe the working of section 7 of the 1994 Act. On the only occasion that I ever went to Vauxhall Cross, I was told by the head of MI6 that section 7 allows his organisation to do things abroad that are unlawful in the UK. We have a duty to examine that, and if it is a matter for the ISC, we should at least have the reassurance that the issue is considered by it on a regular, ongoing basis.
	We have not had an adequate response to an issue that is mentioned in the Government's response on pages 1 and 5. The Home Secretary skipped over that, and I think that her response has been inadequate, bearing in mind the minimal scrutiny that this Parliament is giving this matter this afternoon, for the first time in one and a half years.
	The Clerk of the House and his colleagues act as colleagues of the Chair of Select Committees. They ask the Chairperson, Would you like me to do this? or Would it be a good idea to do that? That may happen in the ISC, but one cannot escape the fact that whoever provides the secretariat for that Committee is in the Cabinet Office, and that is unhealthy. It provides no reassurance that the role of the Clerk is the same as it is for other Select Committees. We could make special arrangements for the Clerk, such as deep vetting, as the phrase has it.
	Incidentally, one of the questions I asked about deep vetting concerned an MI5 operative whose spouse was involved in what is referred to as the sex industry. I asked about the vetting in that case, but I did not get an answer because it is secret [ Laughter. ]

Julian Lewis: She was under cover!

Andrew MacKinlay: That may well be, but how can we be reassured, in a free and democratic Parliament, that the conduct, stewardship and oversight of our intelligence services are satisfactory? The present arrangements are wholly inadequate.
	I urge hon. Members to consider what I hope is a modest amendment, under which the Clerk of the House would provide the secretariat for the Committee. Many things would flow from that, and it is clear that there would have to be much more discussion, as well as amending legislation, but I contend that it would constitute a great advance. I therefore hope that colleagues will support me on this House of Commons matter in the Division Lobby this eveningassuming that the Government do not accept the amendment in principle.

Ben Chapman: I want to say a few words about the intelligence agencies' financial accountability. It may not be the most exciting part of their operation, but it is an important one none the less. I want to say something about resource allocation and, if time permits, something about the cyber challenge.
	Our report shows that there has been a substantial real-terms increase over recent years in the single intelligence account, which funds all the agencies. That is set to continue: according to the 2007 comprehensive spending review, the SIA for this purpose will increase from 1.85 billion in 2008-09 to 2.15 billion in 2010-11. Obviously, those are very large sums of money, but I welcome the increased investment by the Government in this important matter. It is a necessary response to the continuing and pervasive threat posed by international terrorism.
	The Security Service has estimated that there are at least 2,000 individuals in the UK who pose a direct threat to our safety and public security because of their support for the al-Qaeda form of terrorism. That figure has increased since 2005, and I expect it to continue to do so. Evidence suggests that attack planning in Europe has increased over the past 12 months and there has been recent media coverage of a number of foiled plots. It is said that the threat will last for at least a generation.
	These can be fragmented terror groups that plan random plots, but they are often co-ordinated, sometimes from abroad. They boast sophisticated technical know-how, and they are united in their pursuit of extremist ideological ends that are anathema to basic tenets of our democracy. Their willingness to kill indiscriminately, en masse and without prior warning makes this a more extreme form of terrorism than anything that we have experienced previously. Given that the threat posed by terrorism is an amorphous and changing one that franchises, morphs and spreads, there is a question about the most suitable structures through which our response is to be channelled.
	I shall leave that question to one side, though, as it is clear, however one slices it, that this is a serious and sustained threat. It is important that the agencies continue to receive adequate financial support as their work becomes more complex and challenging. They are literally in the business of saving lives.
	The unprecedented increase in funding means that it is more appropriate than ever that suitable mechanisms of accountability are in place. We are, after all, dealing with public money. The sensitive nature of the agencies' work should not, of course, preclude them from being subject to appropriate management and financial disciplines. In any organisation, major increases in resources can lead to inefficiencies and waste rather than value for money and discipline. Expenditure projects that previously did not quite come up to the mark and were found to be below the line can now be dusted off and, relatively speaking, found to be above the line and brought forward.
	The annual report that we are discussing notes the Committee's satisfaction, with some caveats, that public money has been put to the best use and subject to appropriate auditing practices and efficiency targets. However, whether the efficiency targets are appropriate is another question, which again I shall leave to one side for the moment.
	By its nature, the ISC is the only body that can take the oversight role. To ensure that money continues to be appropriately and well spent, I think that we need to take an even more hands-on approach in that regard. We need to review constantly, rather than retrospectively, the financial situation within the agencies and how money is spent. We are in discussions about how we do that, but there is obviously no point in closing the stable door. One option, in line with the Government's proposals for reform of the Committee, would be to include a special financial investigator as part of the pool of investigators, and that would strengthen the research capacity of the Committee in that regard.

Peter Kilfoyle: I am very interested in what my hon. Friend is saying. How does he perceive the interface with the Public Accounts Committee? Is there a role for it in terms of improved accountability, given the increased expenditure of the intelligence services?

Ben Chapman: I think there is scope for liaison. We do, of course, draw on the resources of the National Audit Office in our work of oversight. We need vetted people to help us and there are a limited number of those in the NAO but none, to the best of my knowledge, in the PAC.
	The point is also relevant to the more general question of resource allocation and whether funding is sufficient. I suspect that the question about whether the funding is enough is probably unanswerable, but given the gravity of the threat faced by the UK, we must be confident that additional funds are appropriately distributed and targeted. We must be careful to ensure that, in rightly focusing resources on the threat of terrorism, we do not neglect to think carefully how best we can use total funds. For instance, the Committee, and hon. Members earlier in the debate, have expressed concern that the recent recruitment drives launched by the agenciesa significant reason for the increased expendituremay lead to a dilution in the quality of staff and to grade inflation. Over 2007-08, for example, the Security Service aimed to supplement its existing 3,200-strong work force with an additional 690 officersan increase of 20 per cent. We obviously should not prize quantity above quality, but again we are assured, and we accept, that the issue is being managed effectively. The report notes the Committee's concern that while the agencies' focus on countering the threat of terrorism is both necessary and understandable, it has resulted in a
	proportionate reduction in resources dedicated to tackle other areas.
	I want to elaborate on that, not necessarily from a Committee perspective but from a personal and open-source point of view.
	The end of the cold war was supposed to mark the end of traditional rivalries between nation states, as we slipped into an era of liberal democratic peace. In many ways 9/11 reinforced that trend, as the more amorphous threat posed by Islamic terrorism came to be seen as the primary threat to our national security. The national security strategy announced in March reflected that in its focus on the dangers posed by terror networks and other non-state actors. It had very little to say on state-led threats. I worry that pooling all our resources into the war on terror may have taken the focus away from more traditional forces of threat.
	Over the past year, there has been a growing number of warnings about the extent of covert activity by foreign intelligence organisations in the UK. In his Society of Editors speech last November, the director general of the Security Service said that his agencies had been forced to defend the UK against
	unreconstructed attempts by Russia, China and others, to spy on us.
	There has been a spate of unconfirmed

Andrew MacKinlay: The date was 5 November, which I thought was quite significant, because I think there is a case to defend Parliament and parliamentary democracy here. I went into the M15 website the other day, which said,
	myths...MI5 'vets' Ministers and Members of Parliament. Ministers and MPs are not subject to vetting.
	How was it that I was warned by the Chief Whip not to meet a Russian diplomat? I find that highly unacceptable in a democracy. This is going on, and it is menacing.

Ben Chapman: It is not for me to comment on that, but I am sure that the point has been recorded and will be noted.
	There has been a growing number of warnings over the past year about the extent of covert activity by foreign intelligence organisations in the UK. There has been a spate of unconfirmed stories about the hacking of sensitive computer networks in Whitehall Departments, in parliamentary offices and UK businesses. It is said that 30 agents are operating out of the Russian embassy and trade mission in Londonthe same number as during the cold war. That has been referred to in some respects. Much of that is tied to the increased competition between nation states over resources, whether energy, technology or information. That seems set to define the 21st century.
	Despite the changing nature of the security environment since the end of the cold war, it is dangerous to ignore the more conventional threats. The Security Service currently spends only a small percentage of its resources on counter-espionage. The majority of the agency's resources go into combating terrorism at home and abroadthat is rightbut at a time when other countries are increasing the sophistication and reach of their espionage activities, we may need to rethink that division of resources. Our report suggests that
	consideration may need to be given to separate, additional funding
	for aspects of intelligence and security work other than counter-terrorism. Of course, I agree with that.
	Again speaking from a personal rather than Committee perspective, I want to mention the looming danger posed by cyber threats. I have to say that I defer to no one in my lack of knowledge in that area, but it seems to me that that term broadly describes the intent to defend and attack information and computer networks in cyberspace. The appeal of that form of post-modern, asymmetric warfare is obvious; it is a low-risk strategy, since it is generally difficult to trace the origins of cyber attacks and to apportion blame, but it is high yield in the sense that it gives states or individuals the opportunity to offset the superiority of an adversary's forces on the conventional battlefield. Smaller players can level the playing field with larger opponents in the cyber arena, because of the relative ease of access to the technology.
	Given the dependence on information technology in not just our military systems but the whole infrastructure of modern society, a successful cyber attack could pose a severe threat to national security and economic prosperity. This is a developing issue in inter-state relations, but one that is unlikely to go away in an age when information superiority is paramount. It is vital that this issue is given the requisite attention. At the very least, perhaps we need to think about the allocation of more resources from the single intelligence account to counter-espionage, to guard against complacency, particularly in relation to the cyber challenge.

George Howarth: May I say what a pleasure it is to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, South (Ben Chapman), particularly his lucid explanation of post-modern, asymmetric warfare? I am sure that the whole House is now far better informed on that subject than we were a few moments ago.
	I want to address some of the issues that have been raised variously by my hon. Friends the Members for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay), for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle) and for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick). In an ideal world, the secrecy involved in the various agencies and the collection of intelligence would not be so wide ranging as it must be in the world in which we live. Therefore, greater openness would be perfectly possible, because a smaller amount of information would need to be dealt with.
	As many hon. Members have said, the threat in the post-9/11 world from those who are influenced by Salafi ideology, which was born in Egypt but has been assimilated by groups such as al-Qaeda, is such that we need to have extensive coverage of what is going on in the UK and in countries such as Pakistan and other countries in the middle east and elsewhere.
	If we are to deal with a lot of intelligence information that is by its nature secret, it is not possible for it all to be discussed openly or for us to conform with all the democratic requirements that rightly apply to other areas of policy. We are not dealing with the health service or education; the information is of a completely different kind and it has to be dealt with differently.

Chris Mullin: Nobody is arguing that all the information should be put in the public domain; the argument is that in a democracy the Intelligence and Security Committee should account to Parliament, not to the Prime Minister.

George Howarth: My hon. Friend will forgive me if I say that that is exactly what we are discussing here today. I shall move on. I shall probably answer his substantive point slightly differently in a moment.
	My view is that as far as possible everything should be as out in the open as is reasonable. It is appropriate that, through the Green Paper, the Government have considered how we scrutinise and how we can do more things in public. I shall not cover that ground too much, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Margaret Beckett), who chairs our Committee, dealt with it in great detail and in a way that represents the views of most, if not all, of the Committee's members. Some things we can do in public and some we cannot. The obvious examplethe national security strategywas raised by my right hon. Friend. As that is a public document, it seems reasonable that much of any interview that we have with the heads of the agencies or those responsible for them should be public; I have no problem with that.
	My point is that there is a trade-off: the more that we do in public as a Committee, the less we will get to know. I cannot go into detail, for obvious reasons, but in one of our recent investigations, for example, we looked at some raw intelligence information. It goes without saying that if, as is sometimes necessary, we have the ability to do that, we cannot suddenly grill someone about that information in public. A big element of what we do has to take place behind closed doors; the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Mr. Mates) made that point very effectively, so I will not take it any further.
	In the three years during which I have been a member of the Committee, we have had the opportunity to talk to the members of other oversight committees from other parts of the worldSpain, South Africa, Australia, Canada and others. I should add that most of the time they come to see us rather than the other way round, in case anyone thinks that we spend all our time travelling around the globe. One of the points that has come out of a lot of the dialogue that we have had with people on other oversight bodies is that they envy the extent to which we can go into greater depth and look at information that they simply would not be allowed to consider. They have often made the point that we are probably more effective because we are more behind closed doors than our equivalents in other parts of the world.
	I had intended to say a lot more, but time forbids. I also want to address briefly the review of counter-terrorism strategy; our report refers to that from page 27. I am thinking particularly of the Contest strategy, and, within that, the Prevent strand. One of the great lessons that we learned from the London bombings of three years ago is that some young, and in many cases British-born, Muslims are so alienatedthat is probably the wrong word; detached is betterfrom their own predominantly Muslim community and broader British society. There are all sorts of reasons for that, but I do not have time to go into them now. The agencies are well aware of those reasons, and I know that the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government is also pursuing that agenda.
	It is hugely important that we better understand the process that often leads young Muslim menit is almost exclusively young Muslim mento move from a point at which they might be considered radical to a point at which they are willing to strap on explosives, go on to the public transport system and kill and maim hundreds of people. At some future time, it could even be thousands of people. There is a very good book on that process by an American academic and former employee of the State Department, Marc Sageman, called Understanding Terror Networks. It is important that that kind of open-source information should be taken into account by the agencies as they increasingly try to understand what is going on in our own community.
	A further point on the radicalisation and conversion to terror of young Muslims is that we need directly to engage with them. There are some who would be described by them as apostatesfor example, Hassan Butt and Ed Husain. Those people have held that ideology and then rejected it, and are now doing a very brave thing in raising these issues, having come to an understanding of how wrong they were. They are writing articles, making speeches and giving lectures on this subject. They and others in the Muslim community who are moderate in their interpretation of Islam must be strongly encouraged. If we are to prevent more and more young Muslim men from becoming terrorists, almost nothing is more important than that engagement. I know that the agencies recognise that fact, but I hope that we all recognise that we have a responsibility to engage with those people and to understand their genuine issues and grievances while, at the same time, being firm in pointing out that terror and blowing people up are not acceptable in this country and will never be condoned simply because they take on a religious colour.

Gordon Prentice: I shall take only a couple of minutes. I came here to support my good Friend the Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay), but I might make one or two other observations, having listened to the debate.
	My Friend the Member for Stockton, South (Ms Taylor) talked about the agencies selecting from a smaller pool of people. That was very delphic; I really wondered what she meant by that. I find myself thinking that the report is very disappointing when it comes to staffing and recruitment issues. The right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Mr. Mates) told us that it is not about recruiting the wrong people but about getting enough of the right people, yet there is nothing substantial in the report about recruitment methods or turnover. We know how many people there are in the three agencies. We are told that it is 3,200, and that there has been an explosion in numbers, with another 690 being recruited in 2007-08. Presumably that recruitment will continue into the future, so long as there is this terrorist threat. We also know that there are concerns within the agencies about the civil service retirement age increasing to 65 over the coming years. And that really is about it.
	My substantive point is that the staff at GCHQin fact, the staff of all the agenciesare civil servants, but they do not have all the rights of civil servants. There is no requirement, for example, to appoint according to merit. That is at the core of the United Kingdom civil service, but GCHQ and the other two agencies could just drag someone off the street and appoint them. GCHQ staff cannot take their concerns to the Office of the Civil Service Commissioners, or any other outside body.

Michael Mates: The hon. Gentleman is plain wrong about that. In the Committee's lifetime, a special person has been appointed to whom any member of any of the security services can, in confidence, take any ethical, professional or other concerns, without going through their line management. That has been working extremely well. He ought to get his facts right.

Gordon Prentice: I hear what the right hon. Gentleman says, but I wonder whether that system is sufficient. In 2004, when the Government published a draft Civil Service Bill, in response to the draft Civil Service Bill produced by the Public Administration Committee, it included reference to GCHQ, but in the draft Constitutional Renewal Bill currently before the House, which is being considered by a Joint Committee, GCHQ has disappeared in a puff of smoke. When the first civil service commissioner, Janet Paraskeva, came before the PAC in April, she voiced her concerns about that. I am left wondering why the thousands of staff in the intelligence agencies are the only civil servants not to be covered by the draft Constitutional Renewal Bill. My invitation to the right hon. Member from East Hampshire and his colleagues on the Committee is that they should consider the issue, not close their minds to it. He should perhaps ask the Committee to take a view on the subject.

David Lidington: This has been a constructive debate. I start with a few words of tribute for the members of the agencies. We are dealing with a body of extremely dedicated public servants. They work hard on tasks of vital importance to our safety and the safety of our constituents. Many members of those agencies will, at times in their careers, have to risk their life and safety to protect our national interests. When they have successes against the enemies of this country, the thanks almost always have to be given behind closed doors, and the celebrations have to be held in secret. It is right that hon. Members on both sides of the House should express their thanks and pay tribute to the services today.
	On behalf of Conservative Members, I thank the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Margaret Beckett) and her Committee for their work. It is probably accepted by everybody, at this stage of the debate, that criticisms about the limits on the powers of the Committee have not been intended as criticisms of the dedication or professionalism of the right hon. Lady and the members of her Committee. Having had the opportunity to shadow her a few years ago, I can vouch for the fact that she always behaved impeccably in respecting the traditions, conventions and powers of the House of Commons.
	I thank the hon. Members for Stockton, South (Ms Taylor), and for Wirral, South (Ben Chapman), the right hon. Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth), my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Mr. Mates), and my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Richard Ottaway) for the work that they do, which, as we have heard frequently this afternoon, is unsung and unpublicised, although I am sure that it takes many hours and a great deal of concentration and effort.
	I want to touch on a subject that has not been mentioned much, although the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Chris Huhne) referred to it and it is discussed on page 4 of the report, namely rendition, which was the subject of a special report by the ISC in July 2007. I welcomed the Foreign Secretary's statement on 3 July following the investigation by the United States authorities of allegations that flights had been used for rendition purposes. The Foreign Secretary was able to provide the reassurance that Secretary of State Rice had given him a clear pledge that rendition would not be attempted by the United States without the express agreement of the British Government. He provided the further assurance in that statement that, while cases would be considered on their merits, the Government will follow the principle that rendition is not allowed if it conflicts with the laws of the United Kingdom.
	The Foreign Secretary's statement was welcome, but I wonder whether the Government will provide further reassurance by taking action to ratify the international covenant for the protection of all persons from enforced disappearance, which was adopted by the UN General Assembly in December 2006. In a written answer on 14 November 2007, Lord Malloch-Brown said that the United Kingdom had been active in promoting agreement on the convention, but that there had been a delay in the ratification process in this country. It has been suggested to me that genuine security concerns lie behind that delay. If so, I would be grateful for any light that the Foreign Secretary can throw on that matter. If the issue is simply stuck in a Whitehall pending tray, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will use his influence to get the file out of pending as soon as possible and have work done to take that instrument forward.
	This afternoon, the debate has centred on the extent to which it will be possible to strengthen parliamentary oversight of the Committee's work. To some extent, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) said, we must accept that activities involving the intelligence and security agencies now involve other agencies whose activities fall under the remit of parliamentary Select Committees.
	My hon. and learned Friend cited the case of action against organised crime. Paragraph 32 of the ISC report states that the Secret Intelligence Service is transferring resources away from organised crime in order to focus on the priority of counter-terrorism and that it is transferring greater responsibility for such work to the Serious Organised Crime Agency. Paragraphs 37 and 38 of the report describe how the SIS and SOCA are co-operating against drugs traffickers and the global narcotics network. Such activity is certainly in this country's national interest, but there is a discrepancy. SOCA is subject to oversight by the Home Affairs Committee and the Public Accounts Committee, but the SIS is not subject to a departmental Select Committee or to the PAC.
	Another anomaly concerns Northern Ireland, where the Police Service of Northern Ireland works closely with the Security Service at a new base in Belfast. Those PSNI officers are, through their chief constable, accountable in law to the Northern Ireland Policing Board. When the appropriate legislation was going through this House, we were told that there were to be protocols to define how the information and work shared between the Security Service and the PSNI should be handled when it came to accountability before the Policing Board. It would be interesting to know whether those protocols are operating successfully. There is an expectation, particularly in the nationalist community in Northern Ireland, that responsibility for policing and criminal justice will be devolved to the Northern Ireland Assembly. If that comes to fruition, the PSNI will include in its ranks officers working with the Security Service, which will report to a policing Minister in Northern Ireland, who might, at some stage in future, be a member of Provisional Sinn Fein. That illustrates the fact that, to some extent, the boundaries between the areas that are regarded as secret and subject to the ISC and those that are subject to other parliamentary or regional Assembly bodies are becoming a bit blurred.
	I welcome the reforms that the Home Secretary announced, but the question is whether they go far enough. I agree with the hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) that three and a half hours' debate in 18 months on the vital work of the agencies is inadequate. I hope that Government business managers will take note of that and provide further opportunities for such debates to take place in the House more regularly.
	I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South that the ISC's investigative capacity and resources should be enhanced. The more that the resources and investigatory powers of the ISC come to match those of the Public Accounts Committee, the better it will be for effective scrutiny by the ISC of the agencies, above all given the enhanced budget and increasingly important role that those agencies are playing.
	The central question in much of the debate was the extent to which the ISC's proceedings can be made more open. Conservative Members accept that the key principle is that we must protect the effectiveness of the security and intelligence agencies in doing their job on behalf of the people of this country and in defending the national interests of the United Kingdom.

David Winnick: We can all agree with that.

David Lidington: I hear the hon. Gentleman saying that we can all agree on that central principle.
	My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield pointed out that nowadays a diligent researcher is able to use the internet, or perhaps access the archives in Washington, to gain access to information that is being withheld from publication in the public version of the ISC's report. The hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) reminded us that in the past 20 years we have come a long way from the time when even an explicit mention of a meeting with the director general of the Security Service had to be written in code on the Home Secretary's diary sheet. I hope that, in the context of a proper statutory reform of the ISC, we can push the envelope further and move, step by step, towards even greater openness than that which we have today.

David Miliband: I thank all right hon. and hon. Members who have made this a constructive and useful debate. The ISC is, in a way, a very British institution as regards how it works and tries within the limits of our own practice to get the right degree of rigour in the scrutiny of Government and the agencies without compromising the vital work that they do. Let me put it on record that from the Government's point of view it is in our interest, never mind the country's interest, that that scrutiny is as rigorous as possible given the limits that need to exist.
	I want to associate myself strongly with the remarks of all right hon. and hon. Members. Whether they have supported the Government's proposals or expressed qualms about them, all have praised the dedication, bravery and intelligence of our agencies, and I would like to second that very strongly. These people and the organisations that they work for have, for a long time, played a critical role in the defence of the country and the defence of the interests of every citizen of this country, and we are lucky to have them.
	Overseas secret intelligence, which I obviously have more to do with than domestic intelligence, has given us a vital edge in tackling some of the most difficult security challenges that we face; the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) spoke about bravery, and he was right to do so. Very briefly, I would like to put it on record that I have known Alex Allan for 11 years now, and a couple of hon. Members referred to his recent illness and passed on their best wishes to him. I am delighted to say that he will be able to recognise the warmth and strength of that feeling when it is passed on to him in hospital. I am sure that we all wish him a speedy and full recovery from his illness.
	I would also like to thank sincerely all members of the Committee that is led by my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Margaret Beckett), and my right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy), who was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South (Ms Taylor), for his efforts. The rigour with which they approach their task is important for the Government and the nation, and we are developing a balance of challenge and support that is appropriate for the difficult issues that we face.
	I would like to pick up on as many as possible of the comments made by hon. Members without trying the patience of the House. In case hon. Members are worried, I am not planning to take us up to 6 o'clockthis will not be a Castro-length peroration, tempting though it is to engage in such a peroration about the reforms. The hon. Member for Croydon, South (Richard Ottaway) suggested that the reforms could not be classified as revolutionary, which is right, but that is partly because the system has strengths, and we want to build on those rather than up-end the system.
	The Intelligence and Security Committee differs from parliamentary Select Committees for a simple reason: in order to carry out its work it needs access to highly classified materials. Unlike Select Committees, its deliberations, or at least most of themI shall come back to the amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) in a momentneed to take place in a secure environment, behind closed doors. Its reports inevitably contain highly classified information, which is why the Prime Minister is the first to see them in their entirety and why versions laid before the House are redacteda point that I shall also return to.
	I shall start with the Government's proposal for a new Standing Order that would change the process of appointing hon. Members so that they would go before the House by means of the Committee of Selection, and right hon. and hon. Members would get to vote on them before their names were put to the Prime Minister for agreement. The Prime Minister will retain the final say on membership as he is ultimately responsible for and accountable to the House on matters of national security. It is right to make this reform in the interests of the openness and parliamentary accountability that hon. Members have referred to.

Peter Kilfoyle: I do not think that the Foreign Secretary was in the Chamber for this part of the debate, but is there any reason why people cannot be nominated, elected and then vetted? Why does it have to be the other way around? Surely, that effectively means that the Prime Minister would retain the right to veto potentially for political reasons, not because someone is in some way unreliable.

David Miliband: The House will be able to judge clearly the merits of the case put to it by the Committee of Selection, and if a capricious decision were made after that, the House would be able to see it. The reform makes sense, and answers the case that has been made.
	Let me address the point about the openness of hearings by heads of agencies, and the notion of such hearings taking place in open session. That process will not be straightforward, and the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Mr. Mates), among others, has referred to that. We cannot put issues of national security or the safety of individualsI underline that second pointat risk, and nor do we want to limit the type of evidence that the Committee can hear in order for it to operate in public.
	The Government believe that there is scope for holding some sessions in public, and we want to make progress on that. However, we must protect national security, and in that context, the Government must consider when it is appropriate for evidence to be taken in public. Given our commitment to explore the matter with the ISC's Chairman and its members, I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North will not press his amendment, but hold us to account for our progress in developing some open sessions.
	Next there is the anomaly of the ISC annual report being debated only here and not in the other place. That must change and I do not believe that anyone objects to that. Providing that the Chairman of the ISC should open the debate in the House is a worthwhile innovation.
	Some questions have been asked about the ISC's resources. They have doubled in the past five years, but I heard the comments about the commitment of hon. Members of all parties to giving the ISC the resources that it needs. Obviously, they cannot be infinite, but we are committed to ensuring that the Committee has what it needs to carry out its duties effectively. We are happy to work with the Committee on an independent investigator.
	Let me consider staffing and amendment (a), which my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) tabled. Appointments are made to the secretariat through free and fair competition. As the right hon. Member for East Hampshire made clear, it is open to a Clerk of the House or anyone else to apply for a job with the ISC. All staff, whether ISC or not, would be on civil service terms and conditions. However, we cannot accept the amendment because it would not be appropriate for staff who work for a Committee, which reports directly to the Prime Minister rather than to Parliamentas is essential, given the nature of the ISC and its workto be under the authority of the Clerk of the House. I therefore hope that my hon. Friend will not move his amendment. Once we have agreement about the fundamental basis of the ISC, I do not understand how his proposal is practical.

Andrew MacKinlay: If my amendment were accepted, it could clearly only flag up what must be included in primary legislation. All the difficulties that my right hon. Friend raises can be overcome by discussion, so that the Clerk remains the Clerk of the House of Commons, but the Committee could still answer directly to the Prime Minister. I shall not trespass into that argument.

David Miliband: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's attempt to find common ground, but he is effectively saying that we do not need to accept the amendment to continue thinking about whether primary legislation is necessary. On that basis, I look forward to his not moving the amendment and to continuing the constructive discussions.
	Offices have taken up more of the debate than I expected. The ISC needs secure accommodation to carry out its duties. We have no proprietorial commitment to its meeting in the Cabinet Office or elsewhere, but we are examining the matter with an open mind.
	Let me deal with some individual points. Several hon. Members referred to reports in  The Guardian about UK complicity in the torture of UK nationals detained in Pakistanan extremely serious charge. The Security Service has checked for any relevant information in the light of the media allegations and informed me that there is nothing to suggest that it has supported torture in Pakistan or anywhere else. The Government's position is clear: we unreservedly condemn the use of torture. We take allegations of mistreatment extremely seriously and would follow up all such allegations very carefully. Of course, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South said, individuals who feel that their human rights have been infringed by the intelligence services can take their case to the investigatory powers tribunal.
	Redaction has also been mentioned. The right hon. Member for East Hampshire said that no redaction has ever been made without the Committee's consent. The Government are committed to ensuring that that always remains the case. It is a positive development and there is no reason for it to be compromised.
	On the SCOPE computer system, phase 1 provides an operational shared service to a range of Departments, including the intelligence agencies. The enhanced SCOPE infrastructure will continue to play a central role in the way in which the Government share sensitive information securely. As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said and the ISC noted in its annual report, the programme has already delivered significant benefits to the wider community through phase 1 and has been instrumental in improving policymaking and operational efficiency.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, South (Ben Chapman) made an interesting venture into electronic cyber-attackI think that he knows more about that than he let on; let us put it that waybut he did not mention the Centre for the Protection of National Infrastructure, which is available to the private sector from the Government and to Government through GCHQ, and which co-ordinates a range of briefings and efforts to ensure that we are protected.
	In respect of the focus on terrorism, which I do not think any hon. Member has questioned, I have seen no evidence to suggest that our efforts to secure our country have been compromised in other areas as a result of that focus, although that is obviously something that we must continue to watch.
	FinallyI hope that I am not getting on the wrong side of the deputy Chief Whip herethe hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington), who speaks for the Opposition, asked about rendition. Although I am tempted to wait for another 35 minutes and see whether those in the Box can produce an answer to his question about the UN convention on enforced disappearances, I am afraid that one has not yet arrived. I hope that he will allow me to write to him with details of where in the Foreign Office's pending tray the issue lies. Subject to that, I am happy to admit that I am unable to provide him with an immediate answer.
	The House is agreed that the intelligence agencies play a vital role. We are agreed that we need strong and rigorous independent questioning and scrutiny by the ISC. We are agreed that Parliament should play a greater role

Dominic Grieve: rose

David Miliband: This is my Castro-length peroration and it is a little unfair to intervene, but I shall give way to the hon. and learned Gentleman.

Dominic Grieve: I am grateful to the Foreign Secretary and I apologise for interrupting his peroration. I appreciate that, for good reason, he was not in the Chamber when I raised the SCOPE project [ Interruption. ] In that case, I apologise to him; neither I nor my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) heard him mention it.

David Miliband: It is understandable when someone who is not in the Chamber does not hear what is said; it is more worrying when someone who is in the Chamber does hear what is said. I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman was neither talking to his neighbour nor snoozing through the most gripping part of my speech, but perhaps I did not enunciate it clearly enough.
	The system that we have is one that we should build on. It is one that the Government are determined to reform. We want to reform it with the support of the whole House, as I think has been demonstrated today. I commend our proposals to the House.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Resolved,
	That this House has considered the matter of the Annual Report of the Intelligence and Security Committee for 2006-07, Cm 7299, and the Government response, Cm 7300.

REFORM OF INTELLIGENCE AND SECURITY COMMITTEE

Mot ion made, and Question proposed,
	That this House endorses the proposals for the reform of practice and operation of the Intelligence and Security Committee as set out in paragraphs 235-244 of the Governance of Britain White Paper, Cm 7342-I, including provision for nomination of the members of the Committee drawn from the House of Commons to be based in future on proposals made by this House. [David Miliband.]
	 Amendment proposed: (a), at end add:
	; and considers that the secretariat of the Intelligence and Security Committee should be staffed by officials under the authority of the Clerk of the House.. [Andrew Mackinlay.]
	 Question put, That the amendment be made:
	 The House divided: Ayes 32, Noes 205.

Question accordingly negatived.
	 Resolved,
	That this House endorses the proposals for the reform of practice and operation of the Intelligence and Security Committee as set out in paragraphs 235-244 of the Governance of Britain White Paper, Cm 7342-I, including provision for nomination of the members of the Committee drawn from the House of Commons to be based in future on proposals made by this House.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) wish to move his amendment?

David Winnick: On the basis of what the Government have said, I shall not move my amendment.

membership of Intelligence and Security committee

Ordered ,
	That the following new Standing Order be made:
	 Members of the Intelligence and Security Committee
	(1) The Committee of Selection may propose that certain Members be recommended to the Prime Minister for appointment to the Intelligence and Security Committee under section 10 of the Intelligence Services Act 1994.
	(2) No motion may be made for the House to agree to a proposal under this order unless
	(a) notice of it has been given at least two sitting days previously; and
	(b) it is made on behalf of the Committee of Selection by the chairman or another member of the committee.
	(3) Paragraph (1) (c) of Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business) shall apply to any motion made under this order. [David Miliband.]

Petition
	  
	Road Safety (Norfolk)

Christopher Fraser: I am delighted to present a petition on behalf of my constituents in south-west Norfolk, who are concerned about safety on roads through our villages, which can be narrow and winding. Those roads cannot cope with the speed, weight and volume of traffic that uses them. The residents live in fear of traffic accidents, particularly involving children who use the roads to walk to and from school. The petition is signed by more than 2,000 of my constituents, but many more support its principle. It has my absolute support.
	The petition states:
	The Petition of residents of South West Norfolk,
	Declares that the safety of children and other pedestrians outside schools is vital; that the numbers of road fatalities per year is far too high, that the roads outside schools are particularly sensitive areas; that reducing the speed limit on roads past schools would be an effective way of addressing this.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to consider reducing the national speed limit from 30 miles per hour to 20 miles per hour outside schools.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	[P000243]

BURTON ON TRENT BREWING MUSEUM

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. [Mr. Blizzard.]

Janet Dean: I am grateful for the opportunity to mention the importance of Burton's brewing museum not only to local people but nationally and internationally. Burton on Trent grew out of the brewing industry, which developed because of the quality of the area's water, and it still produces splendid beer.
	In 1977, centuries of brewing in Burton were recognised when the Bass museum was opened to celebrate the bicentenary of Bass. At that time, the museum was housed in the grade II three-storey building known as the joiner's shop. In the 30 years since then, the museum has grown and it now occupies several buildings on the site. There is not only a large gallery that describes the brewing process, but a library, archive and educational facilities, paddocks and stables for the shire horses, a Robey steam engine and vintage road and rail vehicles.
	In 2002, Coors Brewers acquired the museum following the company's purchase of the Bass brewery from Interbrew. However, the Bass name remained with Interbrew and, in 2003, the museum was renamed the Coors visitor centre and museum of brewing. Sadly, in March, Coors announced that it could no longer continue to fund the museum and that it would close at the end of June. That announcement was met with great sadness, some anger and a demand for a way forward to be found to save the museum.
	The messages of support for the museum that I received came from throughout the UK and from other countries, including France, Canada and America. Both local and national organisations contacted me. I was grateful that the local paper, the Burton Mail , launched a petition, which gathered thousands of signatures and was presented to my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport, who is the Minister responsible for culture, creative industries and tourism.
	I have received e-mails from relatives of those who established the museum, and from those who just wished me good luck or asked me to save the museum. I also received messages reflecting the museum's importance, saying that it enables local people to find a sense of their own history and connect it with their heritage. Another e-mail referred to the museum by describing the history of brewing in Burton as the foundation on which the town was built and the museum's closure as damaging to the local economy. A former Burtonian living in New Jersey referred to having brought small groups of Americans to Burton to visit both Marston's Brewery, with its unique Burton Union system, and the museum of brewing, which was described as the highlight of the trip.
	Given so many messages of support for the museum, I felt that it was important to draw together the many organisations that had contacted me, so I organised a meeting at the Coors visitor centre at the end of March. I expected there to be about 20 people at that meeting, but, in fact, 36 attended, including representatives of the following: Coors; Museums, Libraries and Archives West Midlands; Advantage West Midlands; Staffordshire county council, East Staffordshire borough council; the Campaign for Real AleCAMRA; the British Guild of Beer Writers, the chamber of commerce; Burton rotary club; local businesses; and local newspapers.
	From that meeting, a steering group was formed to take forward the development of an options appraisal. One of the key issues raised at the first meeting was the proposed date for closure of the museum and the lack of time to secure a rescue. There was also concern that the artefacts might be dispersed. Therefore, following that meeting, I wrote to Coors asking whether the closure could be delayed and whether Coors would be prepared to make a financial commitment to the museum's future operation. I was pleased that before the first steering group meeting, I received a response from Coors saying that it would be willing to contribute ongoing costs of up to 100,000 per year, as well as the lease of the museum buildings at a peppercorn rent. On top of that, Coors would also be prepared to donate a one-off, match-funded payment of up to 200,000 to a new organisation running the museum. Although Coors could not delay the closure of the museum beyond the end of June, it agreed to keep the museum's artefacts and contents intact until the end of the year, so that a plan could be developed to re-open the centre to the public. Coors also agreed to continue to provide curatorial support until the end of the year to ensure the preservation of the collections, and the shire horses would also be retained during that time.
	The steering group agreed to appoint consultants to produce an options analysis and their final report was released this week. I want to express my thanks to East Staffordshire borough council and Advantage West Midlands for agreeing jointly to fund the consultants, and to Staffordshire county council for agreeing to provide administrative and communications support for the steering group, as well as providing the Coors visitor centre and museum of brewing with staff time to catalogue the extensive archives held on site. I would particularly like to thank Jon Finch, chief executive of Museums, Libraries and Archives West Midlands, for his tremendous support and guidance over the last few weeks. I feel sure we would not have made the progress that we have without him on board.
	The report from Jura Consultants provided a way forward for the museum, and at the last meeting of the steering group, we agreed to ask the key stakeholdersCoors, East Staffordshire borough council and Staffordshire county councilto meet to endeavour to produce a business plan. The consultants' report examined the aims and objectives for the future operation of the centre, which include the future contribution the museum can make to tourism and to the regeneration of Burton, finding a financially viable future for the centre, and the necessity to protect the collections, both the objects and the archives.
	The consultants' report describes the collection by saying:
	The collections held at the Coors Visitor Centre are the most significant collection of brewing related objects in Britain. Furthermore, the archive, which comprises the core administrative, financial, production and employment records of Bass and of the many companies from all over the UK absorbed by Bass over decades, is of national significance. It is therefore important that any future of the Coors Visitor Centre should ensure the collections are protected. The value of the collections could also be diminished if they were to be split up.
	The museum's collection includes not only brewing and malting equipment, brewery transport and specialist items, such as coopering tools, but packaging and historic advertising itemsceramics, glassware, artwork and mirrors. It is also a repository for the Burton town museum, which closed several years ago. It therefore reflects both our local and national heritage.
	The importance of the brewing museum in Burton to our national heritage is reflected in articles that have appeared in national publications. In  The Guardian, Roger Protz, editor of the Campaign for Real Ale's Good Beer Guide wrote an article entitled A Beery Past Imperilled. He said:
	Great brewing nations celebrate the contribution beer has made to their development as civilised societies with dedicated museums. The Czech Republic has two; Belgium, Denmark, the Netherlands and Poland have one each. Even tiny Slovenia has a brewing museum...while the Guinness Storehouse in Dublin attracts a million visitors a year.
	He went on:
	But Britain stands to lose its sole major brewery museum in June when Coors closes its visitors centre in Burton-on-Trent...Brewing is one of the last major British industries. It makes a sizable contribution to the wealth of the nation.
	The article described the history of Burton, saying:
	Burton-on-Trent became an important brewing centre as early as the 11th century, when the monks of Burton Abbey were encouraged to make ale for the Earl of Merciaaided by a constant supply of pure hard spring water from the Trent valley. It was this water, allied to new technologies of the industrial revolution, that enabled brewers in the town to fashion a groundbreaking, globally exported style of beer: pale ale.
	The article continued:
	The small town of Burton heaved with breweries and their armies of workers. The brewers developed their own private railways to feed into the new national network. When St. Pancras station was built in London in the 1860s, its cellars were designed to take great wooden hogsheads of Burton ale..
	All this history is brilliantly depicted in the Museum in Burton and shows how beer and brewing are part of the warp and weft of British society.
	I should like to thank Roger Protz for his outspoken support for the museum in Burton and for his vision of its development into a truly national museum of brewing. The chair of the British Guild of Beer Writers, Tim Hampson, wrote a letter to  The  Guardian in support of the museum. He said:
	Burton-on-Trent is quite simply one of the greatest brewing towns the world has ever seen... If it closes, we would lose an invaluable, unique resource and be denied the only real large-scale beer tourist attraction in the country. The collection is priceless and inimitable.
	He added:
	The collection of artefacts should be kept with the archives. Nothing on its scale exists anywhere else in Britain. And Burton is the natural place to keep it. Burton and the museum are intertwined and it is essential that we try to preserve the heritage, not only of the brewing industry, but of the town. Coors must give the project to create a National Museum of Brewing something almost as valuable as the collection itselftime.
	Although the museum closed its doors to the general public on 30 June, I welcome Coors' commitment to keeping everything intact until the end of 2008. I understand that, if significant progress can be made towards finding a new operator for the museum, then an extension to the company's commitment could be forthcoming. However, we need to make speedy progress.
	The steering group asked the key stakeholders to consider three options put forward by Jura Consultants. All the options would involve using the whole site, and would therefore be able to secure the 100,000 per year financial commitment from Coors, but all would need an operating subsidy of between 140,000 to 256,000 per annum. Each of the options would provide the potential to develop the museum and to seek national status. The consultants' report says:
	Even without national status, the museum would be the premier brewing museum in the UK and an important facility for those wanting to understand, research and enjoy the UK's brewing heritage.
	The report continues:
	One further issue regarding national status is that this could lead to the Coors visitor centre attracting significant collections leading to exciting new displays, which in turn would have the potential to attract additional visitors.
	I very much hope that the many messages of support for the museum, locally and nationally, can now be messages of financial commitment in order to take forward the new operation of the museum, possibly as an independent charitable trust. When my right hon. Friend the Minister of State met a delegation at my request, she offered to contact brewers who might be willing to support the museum. She also mentioned the possibility of support through the Heritage Lottery Fund and Renaissance funding. Local people have suggested voluntary fund raising and at this point I should like to thank all the volunteers who have supported the museum over the years. All those forms of funding can help to sustain and improve it in future years, but a secure stream of revenue of funding is needed to take the project forward. For that, I believe that we must look to both local government and industry. East Staffordshire borough council has, as one of its priorities, the encouragement and development of local prosperity and Staffordshire county council includes in its priorities economic development and enterprise and sustainable development. Advantage West Midland's strategic objectives include attracting more visitors from outside the region. I feel that all these priorities could be helped by support for the brewing museum.
	I also urge the brewing and pub industry to come forward with offers of financial support. I know that these are not easy times for the industry, but this is a golden opportunity to have a museum that reflects the industry as a whole. When the museum was run by only one brewer, it could not be a national museum, nor could it draw down financial support from the lottery and other bodies. The opportunity is now there to develop a national museum of brewing. This is a one-off opportunity, and one that we cannot afford to miss.
	I urge any local and national organisations linked with the brewing industry, or in the case of local bodies, concerned for the future of the town of Burton on Trent, to come forward and make a long-term commitment to the financial support of the museum, subject of course to its becoming an independent museum. If all the disparate organisationsbusiness, local government and other groupscan join together, both the financial burden and, in a sense, ownership of the museum can be shared.
	I have tried to involve all those organisations that contacted me to support the museum in discussions about its future. I hope that we now can see a united effort to secure the funding to take the museum forward as a national museum of brewing. I look forward to hearing from the Minister about any further help or advice he can give us.

Bob Laxton: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Mrs. Dean) on her campaign to keep the Bass brewery open. Forty-odd years ago, when Burton was still the brewing capital of the world, and still producing magnificent beers, a few fairly rumbustious friends and I used to travel to Burton by train. I well remember Burton at the time. It used to smell of three things: gasworks, breweries and Marmite. Marmite is still therethe factory is still there, as far as I am aware.

Janet Dean: I think that Burton no longer smells of the gas; it still smells of Marmite and brewing.

Bob Laxton: It still smells of breweries and Marmitegreat place.
	Here is one of my memories of those days. I was a pint drinker; we drank beer in pints in Derby. I had the unique experience of going into a public house in BurtonI think it was called The Derby Turn because, coming from Derby, we would go into The Derby Turnand saying, I'll have a pint of Bass, please, and hearing the whole public house go absolutely silent. I could not understand it, but the reason was that in Burton people did not drink pints; they only ever drank half pints. Why? Bass and all the breweries round there brewed a flat beer, and the view was that if you had a pint, by the time you got to the bottom it would have gone flat, so you only drank out of half-pint glasses. It was absolute sacrilege for anyone to come in and order a pint.
	Sadly, Bass's brewery, as such, has gone, it having been bought out by Coors. The chimney with Bass lit up at night has gone; that has now, I think, been replaced by Coors. It is sad, but a fact of life.

Janet Dean: My hon. Friend may not be aware that draught Bass is currently brewed at Marston's.

Bob Laxton: I was well aware that Bass is still brewed. People can still get good copperhead Bass. It is still excellent quality, but it is brewed at Marston's brewery. For those who want to be technical, the Union brewery process is used to make another excellent beerMarston's Pedigreebut, thankfully, Bass is also brewed there. It would be an absolute tragedy if almost the last name of Bass departed as a result of the museum closing. The Minister should take the opportunity to visit it if, as I hope, it reopens.
	 It being Six o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
	 Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. [Mr. Blizzard.]

Bob Laxton: The Minister ought to take the opportunity to visit the museum. I have heard little rumoursthey might be maliciousthat he has been occasionally seen imbibing alcohol, namely beer, in odd places around here. He should go to Martson's brewery and sample a good half pint of Marton's Pedigree, followed by an excellent half pint of copperhead Basswonderful; the elixir of life. It would be tragedy if the museum were to stay closed. It should reopen. It is part of industrial history, not just for Burton, but for all those people who like good-quality beers, as opposed to some of the noxious rubbish that we are sometimes forced to imbibe in various parts of the world. Magnificent beer; magnificent history; magnificent brewery; and I shall give whatever support I can to my hon. Friend the Member for Burton to ensure that the Bass museum continues to survive for hundreds of years.

Gerry Sutcliffe: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Mrs. Dean) on securing this debate and on leading the campaign to save the brewing museum in Burton on Trent. I am delighted to have had the educational experience of hearing my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Laxton) in support of my hon. Friend the Member for Burton, both of whom are members of the all-party beer group. Indeed, the chairman of that group, my hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Grogan) is with us now, so this is indeed an important debate on a serious issue.
	As my hon. Friend the Member for Burton has rightly pointed out, there is centuries of brewing heritage in Burton on Trent, with many important brewery buildings and, until very recently, a brewing museum. As she has said, Burton is synonymous with brewing. Great brewing names, such as Bass, Worthington, Ind Coope and Charrington, all had links to Burton, thus making it the brewing capital of the world in the 19th century. By the close of that century, I understand that some 87 miles of private brewery railway lines criss-crossed the town, with 32 level-crossing gates controlling the movement of freight across public roads.
	Even today, there are still brewery businesses in the town, including Coors and Marston's, and the town's brewing heritage continues to be celebrated in the name of the local arts centre and the nickname of the local football teamthe Brewersto name but two. So it is not surprising that the people of Burton signed a petition in their thousands to save the museum from closure and came on to the streets to protest against the closure, with the support of their local newspaper.
	Clearly, it is disappointing that Coors could not keep the visitor centre and museum running as a going concern, but I would rather focus on the future than on the past. Yes, the museum may be closed for now, but that should not be the end of the story. The Minister of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport, my right hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Margaret Hodge), met my hon. Friend and local representatives on 16 June. Both my right hon. Friend and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport are keen to see the museum reopen in some form. The Museums, Libraries and Archives Councilthe MLAwhich is the DCMS's strategic body for the sector, is advising a steering group on the options that are available. As was reported in the  Burton Mail, we do believe that saving the museum is possible and that the setting up of a charitable trust and then fundraising is a fight worth fighting. My right hon. Friend the Member for Barking has said that she will write to the major brewers in this country to seek their financial support for a national museum of brewing. This is not simply about rebadging the Coors visitor centre under a new name; it has to be about celebrating and explaining the role that brewing and pubs play in underpinning our communities.
	The new museum must tell the story of brewing in the community of Burton and its importance for the country as a whole. As a nation, we take our beer pretty seriously, and a national brewing museum has the potential to be the public front door for the brewing industry and its impressive history. When the museum reopens, I shall take up the invitation of my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North and visit it.
	However, first the stakeholder steering group needs to assess what needs to happen to make the museum a viable proposition. That includes arriving at a good, solid, sustainable business plan with a broad range of long-term funding partners behind it. Those will need to include not just Coors, the other brewers and the wider brewing fraternity, but the local authoritiesStaffordshire county council and East Staffordshire borough council. As local authorities, they should consider the value that they place on the museum and whether they can contribute to its future, as I understand that there has not been a local authority-backed museum in the town since the 1980s. Support could also come from the regional development agency, Advantage West Midlands, which has the strategic leadership role for the tourism economy in the region. For instance, there could be scope for marketing the museum as a visitor attraction, alongside the national forest, to draw in visitors to the area.
	The new brewing museum should work towards achieving the museum accreditation standard. Accreditation is about a minimum standard of service delivery and public accountability and more than 1,800 museums across the United Kingdom have so far achieved it. Whether a museum has accreditation is a factor in the Heritage Lottery Fund's assessment of funding applications from museums. East Staffordshire is a priority area for the fund. Only accredited museums can receive funds from the Museums, Libraries and Archives Council-Victoria and Albert Museum purchase grant fund.
	The Department for Culture, Media and Sport can also play its part through the Renaissance programme for regional museums, which is managed by the MLA. The Renaissance programme received an index-linked settlement in the comprehensive spending review and the programme includes the Museum Development Fund, which provides advice and support to the museum community in the west midlands. Once the museum is a going concern, it could use Renaissance in the west midlands to build its audiences and develop its strengths. The new brewing museum will also need to earn its own income from entry fees and other commercial activity. The working group is considering whether corporate and private hospitality and conferencing could help cross-subsidise the museum. Other ideas have included setting up an further education school of brewing as a centre of excellence.
	Gaining charitable trust status could also help in winning public grant funding and make the museum more attractive to private and philanthropic giving and local entrepreneurs. However, competition for resources is tough. More than half the museums in this country are independent; they range from small local organisations, mainly operated by volunteers, to larger national organisations such as the Ironbridge Gorge museum or Chatham historic dockyard. The museum will have to operate within the resources that are ultimately available to it, and volunteers will have an important role to play in developing the museum and its visitor programme over time.
	The coming months will be a challenge for the steering group. I am optimistic in my support for the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Burton and for the wider industry. The enthusiasm of the people of Burton on Trent gives us the opportunity to ensure that the wider community of people in this country, who are passionate about beer and brewing, can have a museum of which they are proud. I hope that we can assist the stakeholder group and that my hon. Friends will keep up the pressure to try to get the museum open again.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Adjourned accordingly at nine minutes past Six o'clock.